Massachusetts Low Demand Final Report PDF

Massachusetts Low Gas Demand
Analysis: Final Report

RFR-ENE-2015-012
Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Energy
Resources
January 7, 2015
AUTHORS
Elizabeth A. Stanton, PhD
Patrick Knight
Joseph Daniel
Bob Fagan
Doug Hurley
Jennifer Kallay
Ezgi Karaca
Geoff Keith
Erin Malone
Wendy Ong
Paul Peterson
Leo Silvestrini
Kenji Takahashi
Rachel Wilson
485 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 2

Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139
617.661.3248 | www.synapse-energy.com
C ONTENTS
1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 2
2.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 9
2.1. Purpose ...........................................................................................................................9
2.2. Intent ............................................................................................................................ 10
2.3. Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 10
2.4. Stakeholder Process ....................................................................................................... 10
2.5. Report Outline ............................................................................................................... 11
3.
MODEL OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 12

3.1. Model Design................................................................................................................. 13
3.2. Winter Peak Event ......................................................................................................... 15
3.3. Scenarios and Sensitivities ............................................................................................. 16
3.4. Feasibility Analysis for Low Energy Demand Scenario ...................................................... 23
3.5. Relationship between Capacity and Demand .................................................................. 28
4.
MODEL RESULTS ............................................................................................ 32

4.1. Peak Hour Gas Shortages ............................................................................................... 32
4.2. Annual Natural Gas Demand .......................................................................................... 36
4.3. Annual CO2 Emissions..................................................................................................... 37
4.4. Annual Costs .................................................................................................................. 42
5.
OBSERVATIONS .............................................................................................. 45
APPENDIX A: FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 46

APPENDIX B: BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS ...................................................................... 72
APPENDIX C: LOW ENERGY DEMAND CASE ASSUMPTIONS ............................................... 83
APPENDIX D: NATURAL GAS PRICE SENSITIVITY ASSUMPTIONS ......................................... 85
APPENDIX E: CANADIAN TRANSMISSION SENSITIVITY ASSUMPTIONS .................................. 87
APPENDIX F: DETAILED PRELIMINARY MODEL RESULTS ................................................. 109
Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.
Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
New Englands natural gas infrastructure has become increasingly stressed during peak winter periods
as regional demand for natural gas has grown. This situation has led to gas supply and transmission
deficits into the region for the gas-fired electric generators during those winter months. Insufficient
natural gas capacity for the electric sector has contributed to high wholesale gas prices to generators
and thus high electricity prices. Furthermore, as non-gas generators retire and gas generators replace
them, the New England electric system is becoming more dependent on natural gas generators.
Governor Patrick directed the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) to determine whether or not
new natural gas pipeline infrastructure is needed in the Commonwealth.
DOER retained Synapse Energy Economics (Synapse) to utilize current forecasts of natural gas and
electric power under a range of scenarios, taking into consideration environmental, reliability and cost
answering two key questions:
What is the current demand for and capacity to supply natural gas in Massachusetts?
If all technologically and economically feasible alternative energy resources are utilized,
is any additional natural gas infrastructure needed, and if so, how much?
Eight scenarios (listed in Table ES-1) were evaluated from an economic and reliability perspective and
were then assessed for compliance with the Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA)
1
targets.
Table ES-1. Scenario key

Scenario 1
Base Case
Reference
NG Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 2
Base Case
Low NG Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 3
Base Case
High NG
Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 4
Base Case
Reference
NG Price
2,400-MW
Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 5
Low Demand
Case
Reference
NG Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 6
Low Demand
Case
Low NG Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 7
Low Demand
Case
High NG
Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 8
Low Demand
Case
Reference
NG Price
2,400-MW
Canadian
Transmission
Note: Canadian transmission refers to incremental transmission of system power from Qubec. This transmission includes
electricity both from hydroelectric and other generators.
From 2015 through 2019, electric generators have insufficient supply of natural gas, which results in
spiking natural gas prices. Scarcity-driven high natural gas prices will force economic curtailment of
Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA), Chapter 298 of the Acts of 2008 as codified in M.G.L. Chapter 21N Climate Protection
and Green Economy Act
natural gas-fired generators in favor of oil-fired units. The combination of increased oil utilization for
electricity generation together with the use of emergency measures such as demand response and the
ISO-NE Winter Reliability program (through January 2018) will allow electric demand to be met. From
2020 to 2030, existing and planned capacity plus incremental pipeline capacity balances system
requirements.
Critical to this result is the assumption that winter peak hour gas shortages cannot be addressed using
known measures (e.g. demand response or the addition of new natural gas pipeline) in years 2015
through 2019 and, as a result, gas prices are expected to reflect an out-of-balance market in those years.
The electric sector responds to these high prices by shifting dispatch from gas to oil generation in the
peak hour, reducing reliance on natural gas. In years 2020 through 2030, in contrast, winter peak hour
gas shortages can be met using known measures (incremental pipeline) and, as a result, gas prices are
expected to reflect an in-balance market in those years. The electric sector no longer has a price signal
to shift dispatch away from gas generation in the peak hour, greatly increasing gas requirements and
reducing reliance on oil in comparison to the previous period.
The amount of pipeline required differs based on scenario assumptions (see Figure ES-1). Year 2020
pipeline additions range from 25 billion Btu per peak hour to 33 billion Btu per peak hour (0.6 billion
cubic feet (Bcf) per day to 0.8 Bcf per day).2 Year 2030 pipeline additions range from 25 billion Btu per
peak hour to 38 billion Btu per peak hour (0.6 Bcf to 0.9 Bcf per day).
Figure ES-1. Massachusetts gas capacity shortage during winter peak hour by scenario, 2020 and 2030
Billion Btu can be converted to Bcf by multiplying billion Btu by 24 hours per day then dividing by 1,022 Btu per cubic foot.
Figure ES-2 compares Massachusetts natural gas capacity to the natural gas demand in the winter peak
hour in three scenarios selected to highlight the progression of reducing gas shortages from a scenario
with existing policies only, to the addition of technically and economically feasible alternative resources
(i.e. renewable energy and energy efficiency measures), to the addition (inclusive of alternative
measures) of new transmission from Canada:
Scenario 1: Base Case is the base case with reference natural gas price and no incremental
Canadian transmission,
Scenario 5: Low Demand is the low energy demand case with reference natural gas price and no
incremental Canadian transmission, and
Scenario 8: Low Demand + Incremental Canadian Transmission is the low energy demand case
with reference natural gas price and 2,400-MW incremental Canadian transmission.
In all scenarios electric sector gas use increases between 2019 and 2020 as gas pipeline constraints are
reduced, price spikes become less frequent, resulting in lower gas prices. Lower gas prices reduce
economic curtailment of gas-fired units and increase gas use while reducing reliance on oil-fired units
and oil use.
Figure ES-2. Comparison of Massachusetts gas capacity and demand for selected scenarios in winter peak hour
Figure ES-3 compares the projected emissions of Scenarios 1, 5 and 8 through 2030 with GWSA targets
for the heating gas and electric sectors (refer to Section 4.3 for explanation of how targets are derived).
The gas heating and electric sectors 2020 GWSA Target depicted below would allow the GWSA 2020
emissions limit to be met, taking into account expected emissions from other sectors. While no
scenario meets the GWSA targets for the heating gas and electric sectors in 2020, Scenario 8 (low energy
demand case with reference natural gas price and 2,400-MW incremental Canadian transmission),
shown below, and Scenario 7 (low energy demand case with high natural gas price and no incremental
Canadian transmission) meet the target in 2030. Scenario 5 (low energy demand with reference natural
gas price and no incremental Canadian transmission) exceeds the 2030 GWSA target by 0.4 million
metric tons or 1 percent of the 2030 statewide emission target.
The 2020 emission level for Scenario 8 shows an approximately 1.6 million metric ton CO2 gap from the
target (25.0 million metric ton CO2 compared with the target of 23.3 million metric tons). The December
2013 GWSA 5-Year Progress Report also identified a potential shortfall in greenhouse gas reductions by
2020 for the buildingsincluding energy efficiencyand the electric generation sectors.
Figure ES-3. Massachusetts GWSA compliance in heating gas and electric sector for selected scenarios
The difference in each scenarios costs from that of Scenario 1 (base case with reference natural gas
price and no incremental Canadian transmission) is shown for Scenario 5 (low demand case with
reference natural gas price and no incremental Canadian transmission) and Scenario 8 (low demand
case with reference natural gas price and 2,400-MW incremental Canadian transmission) in Figure ES-4.
Scenario 5 costs exceed those of Scenario 1 by less than $100 million in each year through 2020 and less
than $200 million each year thereafter. In Scenario 8, the addition of new Canadian transmission in 2018
reduces overall costs in comparison to the low demand case without new transmission (Scenario 5) in
2018 and 2019 because of the large reduction in electric system costs provided by new transmission in
those years. Starting in 2020, the Scenario 8 costs exceed those of Scenario 5 as more alternative
resources are introduced.
Figure ES-4. Massachusetts difference in cost between Scenario 1 (Base Case) and selected scenarios
Table ES-2 reports the difference in each scenarios costs from that of Scenario 1 in net present value
terms over the study period (2015 to 2030), along with the pipeline required by 2030. The addition of
technically and economically feasible alternative measures (Scenario 5) adds $1,433 million in costs (i.e.
capital, maintenance, fuel) to Scenario 1, while the addition of both these alternative measures and a
2,400-MW incremental Canadian transmission (Scenario 8) adds $2,157 million in costs to Scenario 1.
Note that in the low natural gas price sensitivity, Massachusetts costs fall in comparison to scenarios run
with the reference gas price. While Scenario 2 (base case, low gas price sensitivity, no incremental
Canadian transmission) has $8.6 billion in cost savings compared to Scenario 1, Scenario 6 (low demand
case, low gas price sensitivity, no incremental Canadian transmission) has $0.3 billion in added costs
compared to Scenario 1. This difference in costs is due to the costs of implementing the low demand
measures included in Scenario 6.
Table ES-2. Massachusetts difference in cost from Scenario 1 in net present value (million $), 2015 to 2030
compared to 2030 pipeline requirements
NPV
($ M)
2030 Pipeline
(Bcf/day)
Scen. 1
Scen. 2
Scen. 3
Scen. 4
Scen. 5
Scen. 6
Scen. 7
Scen. 8
$0
-$8,611
$5,384
$840
$1,433
$389
$15,112
$2,157
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
This studys results are sensitive to numerous assumptions made in our analysis. These assumptions
have been caveated throughout the following report and include important assumptions regarding
multiple topics, laid out in detail in the following report. Any interpretations of this studys results
should make full consideration of all specified caveats.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1.
Purpose
The Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER) retained Synapse Energy Economics
(Synapse) to determine, given updated supply and demand information, whether or not new natural gas
pipeline infrastructure is required in the Commonwealth taking into consideration environmental issues,
reliability, and costs.3 Key questions for consideration included:
What is the current demand for and capacity to supply natural gas in Massachusetts?
If all technologically and economically feasible alternative energy resources are utilized,
is any additional natural gas infrastructure needed, and if so, how much?
Caveats to model scope

Caveats are included in each of the following sections to summarize issues not included in this modeling
study. Any interpretations of this studys results should make full consideration of all specified caveats.
The scope of this study was restricted to expected Massachusetts natural gas demand
and capacity only. We did not examine gas constraints in the wider region, nor did we
examine the effect of expected gas demand or capacity constraints outside of the
Commonwealth.
The scope of this study was restricted to scenarios in which Massachusetts natural gas
capacity constraints were resolved. We did not construct a scenario based on the
assumption that incremental pipeline would not be an option.
The scope of this study was to investigate the need for a new pipeline. We assumed
neither that new pipeline and corresponding natural gas usage were necessary, nor that
new pipeline and corresponding natural gas were unnecessary.
The study determines whether or not each scenario modeled is or is not compliant with
Massachusetts Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) compliant. We did not assume
that Massachusetts would be in compliance with GWSA.
The study examines the sensitivity of model results to changes in the price of natural gas
and the addition of 2,400 MW of incremental Canadian transmission. Potential
sensitivities of interest not modeled include: the availability in the winter peak hour of
existing coal, nuclear, or other potentially at-risk generation; the combined sensitivity to
a low or high gas price and the addition of incremental Canadian transmission; and
RFR-ENE-2015-012
incremental Canadian resources assumed to be dedicated transmission of hydroelectric

generation or any other resource.
2.2.
The study examined the period of 2015 through 2030. Although new natural gas
infrastructure is not available until 2020, we analyzed years 2015 through 2019 as these
years have changes to the natural gas system including reduced natural gas demand as a
result of energy efficiency measures, and changes to the electric system as a result of
generating unit retirements, energy efficiency measures, and alternative measures. The
inclusion of these years permits more thorough analysis of differences among the
scenarios.
Intent
This report presents information intended to inform state energy decision-makers as they develop and
implement policies and actions with regards to Massachusetts energy infrastructure. The information in
this report can also assist state energy officials in addressing ISO-New England (ISO-NE) market rule
changes that can enable increasing levels of alternative resources and demand response.
2.3.
Analysis
This study considers a range of solutions to address Massachusetts short- and long-term needs, taking
into account system reliability, economic costs, and greenhouse gas reductions. All scenarios are
evaluated from an economic and reliability perspective and are then assessed for compliance with
GWSA. Our analysis was conducted in four steps:
1) Development of a base case and sensitivity assumptions
2) Feasibility study of alternative resources in a low energy demand case
3) Scenario modeling of eight scenario and sensitivity combinations
4) Assessment of natural gas capacity to demand balance in a winter peak event
2.4.
Stakeholder Process
DOER, with the facilitation leadership of Raab Associates, hosted a stakeholder input process to solicit
varied points of view and ensure that the list of solutions and metrics for evaluation were informed by
stakeholder input. This process included three public stakeholder meetings held on October 15, October
30 and December 18, 2014. Prior to each meeting, Synapse posted meeting materials to a website for
stakeholder review.4 DOER made public high level summaries and encouraged stakeholders to submit
written comments and suggestions, which were considered at all stages of the study process.
http://synapse-energy.com/project/massachusetts-low-demand-analysis
10
2.5.
Report Outline
Section 3 provides an overview of the model methodology and model design for this analysis of the
Massachusetts gas sector from 2015 to 2030. It first describes the base case and low demand case, with
the sensitivities associated with each scenario. It outlines the key outputs of the model runs: 1)
sufficiency of gas pipeline capacity under winter peak event conditions, and 2) annual costs and
emissions. This section then gives an overview of the feasibility analysis for the low energy demand case
that is modeled as the base case with the addition of the maximum amount of technologically and
economically feasible alternative demand and supply-side resources.
Section 4 presents model results for all eight scenarios and sensitivity combinations. It displays the
difference between natural gas capacity and natural gas demand during a winter peak event in each
scenario and sensitivity for each modeled year. Each scenarios annual costs compared to the base case
are reported. This section also depicts total emissions from the Massachusetts natural gas heating and
electric sectors in 2020 and 2030 for each scenario compared to 2020 and 2030 GWSA targets for the
buildings and electric sectors.
Section 5 describes our observations regarding these modeling results. Some of these observations
include the sensitivity of winter peak hour requirements to gas prices, the impact of incremental
Canadian transmission, and impacts of alternative measures to reduce Massachusetts gas demands.
Caveats are discussed in each section of the report to summarize issues not included in this modeling
study. Any interpretations of this studys results should make full consideration of all specified caveats.
Six appendices present detailed modeling assumptions and results:
Appendix A presents the feasibility analysis for the low energy demand case;
Appendix B presents assumptions used in modeling the base case;
Appendix C presents assumptions used in modeling the low energy demand case;
Appendix D presents assumptions regarding the sensitivity analysis of changes in the price of
natural gas;
Appendix E presents assumptions regarding the sensitivity analysis of the addition of

incremental electric transmission from Canada; and
Appendix F presents detailed tables of the model results.
11
3. MODEL OVERVIEW
Synapse analyzed eight future scenario-and-sensitivity combinations of the Massachusetts gas sector
from 2015 through 2030. We modeled two future scenarios:
1) A base case representing existing policies in place, and
2) A low energy demand case in which the maximum feasible amount of additional
alternative resources are utilized.
In addition, we tested each of these scenarios for their sensitivity to changes in the price of natural gas
and the addition of 2,400 MW of incremental Canadian transmission as follows:
Base case
No incremental Canadian transmission
Reference natural gas prices (Scenario 1)
Low natural gas prices (Scenario 2)
High natural gas prices (Scenario 3)
2,400-MW incremental Canadian transmission
Low energy demand case
No incremental Canadian transmission
Low natural gas prices (Scenario 6)
High natural gas prices (Scenario 7)
2,400-MW incremental Canadian transmission
From this model we established the difference between natural gas capacity and natural gas demand
during a winter peak event in each scenario and sensitivity for each modeled year, 2015 through 2030,
and investigate the availability of additional measures to relieve shortage conditions.
Our analysis provides the following key outputs:
12
Sufficiency of Massachusetts gas pipeline capacity under winter peak event

conditions: We modeled Massachusetts gas supply and demand under conditions
defined by a winter peak event (as described in Section 3.2), taking account of the
impact on energy storage of a cold snap or series of winter peak days.
Annual costs and emissions: We modeled fuel use, electric generation, variable and
levelized capital energy costs, and greenhouse gas emissions on an annual basis. Annual
costs and emissions were modeled based on expected (most likely) weather conditions,
not extreme conditions. These expected weather conditions included the occurrence of
winter high demand events. We then determined if additional pipeline capacity is
needed to meet demand.
Reliability requirements were a basic criterion for all modeled scenarios.
3.1.
Model Design
Model design for this analysis included Ventyxs Market Analytics electric dispatch model and a Synapse
purpose-built spreadsheet model of Massachusetts gas capacity and demand (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Model schematic
Note: CELT is the 2014 forecast of energy and load demand by ISO-New England and GCA is the Massachusetts Green
Communities Act, per Synapses 2014 analysis.
13
Electric-sector greenhouse gas emissions and cost modeling in Market Analytics

Synapse projected greenhouse gas emissions, electric system gas use, and wholesale energy prices using
Ventyxs Market Analytics electric-sector simulation model of ISO-NE including its imports and exports.
Market Analytics uses the PROSYM simulation engine to produce detailed results for hourly electricity
prices and market operations based on a security-constrained chronological dispatch model. The
PROSYM simulation engine optimizes unit commitment and dispatch options based on highly detailed
information on generating units. This modeling includes detailed runs designed to estimate electricsector gas requirements during the winter event peak hour. Although New England and regions
exporting electricity to New England are modeled to portray economic dispatch of resources as
accurately as possible, only generators located in Massachusetts gas requirements, emissions and costs
are considered in final model results.
A Synapse purpose-built model of Massachusetts natural gas capacity and demand

We developed a dynamic spreadsheet model of natural gas needs for an indicative winter peak event in
Massachusetts, with annual analysis extending out to 2030. This model facilitates assessment of the
balance of New Englands gas capacity and demand under winter peak event conditions. Development
of this model included Massachusetts-specific analysis of historical stress and shortage gas supply
conditions, historical winter peak event conditions, and diversity and reliability of supply.
Gas requirements as defined in the model represent demand from residential, commercial, industrial,
and electric-generation sectors in Massachusetts only:
Local distribution companies (LDCs local gas providers)
Municipal light and gas companies (munis)
Capacity exempt customers (customers that purchase gas supplies from third-party suppliers
and are not required to take and pay for pipeline capacity that LDCs have under contract)
Gas energy efficiency measures
Gas reduction measures: Time varying rates, demand response, ISO-NEs Winter Reliability
program, advanced building costs, renewable thermal policies, and in low energy demand case,
various demand- and supply-side measures were included.
Gas-fired electric generators located in Massachusetts.
Gas capacity as defined in the model represents existing and planned pipeline capacity, liquefied natural
gas (LNG) storage and vaporization, and incremental pipeline capacity as needed to meet gas sector
demand by scenario and year:
Existing pipeline capacity: Algonquin Gas Transmission Company (AGT),

Maritimes/Northeast Pipeline Company (M&NP); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company
(TGP)
14
Planned pipeline capacity: Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) pipeline capacity, which
is an expansion of the AGT line, expected to be complete in 2017
LDCs LNG storage and vaporization: National Grid (NGrid), Columbia, NSTAR, Liberty,
Fitchburg Gas and Electric, Berkshire Gas, Holyoke, Middleboro
Full GDF Suez LNG vaporization in Everett, MA with an allocation for Mystic electric
generation plant
Incremental pipeline capacity
The model assumes that the existing and planned pipeline and LNG vaporization capacity defined above
(including the GDF Suez capacity and Canaport/M&NE Pipeline) is fully utilized to meet demand during
the winter peak event and identifies if and when incremental capacity is needed. Incremental capacity
is specified as pipeline capacity but it can also be supplied by additional LNG. The feasibility and cost of
incremental LNG facilities are highly dependent on factors and conditions present at specific locations.
Such an analysis was beyond the scope of this study. If additional LNG imports through the GDF Suez,
Neptune, Excelerate or Canaport facilities are economical, the delivery of those supplies into the
Massachusetts distribution system during the winter peak event would be limited by the capacity
defined above. Similarly, new LNG facilities will require both additional storage and liquefaction
capability to insure reliability comparable to that of a pipeline, which in most instances will drive its cost
well above the cost of a new pipeline. However, we assume that market and economic factors will drive
decisions as to the most feasible and cost-effective means for meeting natural gas demand.
In addition to modeling winter peak event conditions, Synapses spreadsheet model estimates state and
regional annual greenhouse gas emissions and costs related to Massachusetts natural gas use. This gassector emissions and cost analysis includes expected displacement of other fossil fuels (coal and oil)
where applicable. While gas forecasting is typically conducted in terms of a November-October year, our
analysis was conducted in calendar years to facilitate comparisons with greenhouse gas emission
reduction targets. To convert gas demand for November-October years into calendar years, we
allocated split year demand into calendar year demand based on the ratio of each months expected gas
consumption using the updated monthly forecast data provided by NGrid.
3.2.
Winter Peak Event
Massachusetts gas demand is at its greatest during a very cold winter day. Our analysis of the
sufficiency of Massachusetts natural gas capacity was conducted through the lens of a winter peak
eventa series of particularly cold winter days under which high gas demands have the greatest
potential to exceed gas capacity. For the purposes of this analysis, a winter peak event was defined as
follows:
Capacity and demand in the peak hour of an expected future design day. Design days
are used in gas LDCs forecasts of future natural gas demand and are determined by
calculating the effective degree days (a measure of expected heating demand) expected
15
to occur under a specified probability (from once in 30 years to once in 50 years

depending on the LDC).
Gas requirements for electric generation were developed in Market Analytics to

represent the coincident peak with LDCs design day (the electric peak that coincides
with the gas demand peak): for each year, the highest gas requirement for a January day
from 6 to 7pm.5
LDCs five-year design day forecasts were applied to the January of the split year (e.g.
2015/16) and remain unadjusted from their most recent filing as provided to DOER.6 For
those years not provided by the companies, the average annual load growth rate for the
given forecasted years was used to extrapolate the design day and annual forecasts out
through 2019. From 2020 through 2030 design day and annual gas demand was
projected using a 0.5-percent annual growth rate per DOER projections.7
Sufficiency of natural gas capacity took into account the effects of a cold snap. Each
Massachusetts LDC defines cold snaps differently using a series of the coldest days
ranging from 10 to 24 days; the Commonwealths two largest LDCs use ten and 14 days.
For the purposes of this analysis, we will define a cold snap as a series of 12 cold
weather days, with the design day occurring on the 12th day of the cold snap. In this
model the length of the cold snap impacts the amount of LNG in storage facilities and
the resulting rate of deliverable natural gas from storage.
Caveats to winter peak event
3.3.
This study examines the difference between Massachusetts gas demand and capacity in
an illustrative winter peak event hour. We did not analyze gas constraints in a specific
historical or expected future hour.
Scenarios and Sensitivities
Synapse modeled a base and a low energy demand case of the following possible Massachusetts gas and
electric systems (see Table 1). Both cases assume that there is no incremental transmission from Canada
to New England and a reference natural gas price. In addition, we investigated model results sensitivity
to changes in the price of natural gas and to the addition of 2,400-MW in new transmission capacity
from Canada to the New England hub.
5
6
7
Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC) Draft Gas-Electric Interface Study Target 2 Report, p.64-65.
We used the latest Department of Public Utilities filings for all LDCs except NGrid and Columbia, which provided DOER with
updated design day forecasts.
According to background papers to the CECP, DOER assumed a 0.5-percent annual growth rate for Massachusetts gas demand
after 2020. See Exhibit EAS-13 to MA DPU 14-86.
16
Table 1. Scenarios and sensitivities
No Incremental Canadian Transmission
2,400-MW Incremental
Reference NG Price
Low NG Price
High NG Price
Reference NG Price
Base Case
*Base Case
*Ref NG Price
*No Canadian
Transmission
(Scenario 1)
*Base Case
*Low NG Price
*No Canadian
Transmission
(Scenario 2)
*Base Case
*High NG Price
*No Canadian
Transmission
(Scenario 3)
*Base Case
*Ref NG Price
*2,400-MW Canadian
Transmission
(Scenario 4)
Low
Energy
Demand
Case
*Low Case
*Ref NG Price
*No Canadian
Transmission
(Scenario 5)
*Low Case
*Low NG Price
*No Canadian
Transmission
(Scenario 6)
*Low Case
*High NG Price
*No Canadian
Transmission
(Scenario 7)
*Low Case
*Ref NG Price
*2,400-MW Canadian
Transmission
(Scenario 8)
All scenarios and sensitivities include the carbon price forecast assumption used in the Avoided Energy
8
Supply Costs in New England: 2013 Report (AESC 2013) for the electricity sector. As depicted in Figure 2,
RGGI prices extend to 2019; the Synapse mid CO2 price forecast is used in AESC 2013 for 2020 and
beyond.
Hornby et al. 2013. Exhibit 4-1. Column 6 Synapse CO2 emission allowance price.
17
Figure 2. AESC 2013 CO2 price forecast
Base case
The base case is defined as the energy resource mix and forecasted energy demand expected under
existing policy measures, using a reference natural gas price (see discussion under the natural gas price
sensitivity subsection later in this section), and the assumption that there will be no incremental
electric transmission from Canada in the 2015 to 2030 period.
Base case electric and gas loads were modeled using existing, well-recognized projections, including ISONEs latest CELT forecast for electric demand, the Massachusetts LDCs gas demand forecasts, and the
most up-to-date gas demand information available regarding capacity exempt customers and municipal
entities. Reductions to load from energy efficiency were modeled based on program administrators
data as filed with their respective Departments of Public Utilities.9 These reductions were extended into
the future using the following assumptions: (1) for states other than Massachusetts energy efficiency
budgets remain constant over time in real terms; and (2) for Massachusetts energy efficiency remains
constant as a 2.6-percent share of retail sales from 2015 through 2030.
The base case electric generation resource mix was modeled using the Market Analytics scenario
designed by Synapse for DOER in early 2014 to provide an accurate presentation of Green Communities
Program administrators are the entities that administer energy efficiency programs in the Commonwealth. Typically, program
administrators are the same as utilities (e.g., NSTAR, National Grid), but also include non-utility entities such as the Cape Light
Compact.
18
Act (GCA) policies as well as the Renewable Portfolio Standardsby classof the six New England
states. Synapses GCA analysis for DOER was developed using the NERC 9.5 dataset, based on the Ventyx
Fall 2012 Reference Case. We verified and updated these data with the most current information on gas
prices, loads, retirements, and additions. This case assumes all existing policiesincluding the ISO-NE
Winter Reliability program with its current sunset date, advanced building codes, renewable thermal
technologies, and the recent DPU Order 14-04 on time-varying ratesand forecasted LNG and propane
usage. We modeled distributed resources using ISO-NEs PV Energy Forecast Update, held constant after
2020. Detailed modeling assumptions for the base case are presented in Appendix B.
Caveats to base case
10
11
The base case for this study includes only existing policies and does not consider or
account for currently developing policies or new legislations.
This study bases its base case projections of electric demand on ISO-NEs CELT 2014
forecast, with the exceptions of adjustments made to ISO-NEs energy efficiency
projections (we base these instead on program administrators latest three-year plans).
Any inaccuracies in this forecastincluding its accounting of new housing startshave
the potential to affect model results.
This study bases its base case projections of distributed generation installation on ISONEs PV Energy Forecast Update by state, held constant after 2020 (see Appendix B).
Any inaccuracies in this forecast have the potential to affect model results.
This study assumes that gas heating demand is inelasticthat is, gas heating demand
does not fluctuate with changes in the gas prices. While actual consumer fuel use is
widely regarded to be largely insensitive to fuel prices in the short run, heating demand
has the potential to exhibit more sensitivity to gas prices in the long run as customers
change heating technologies. While this study does not model long-run sensitivity to
increasing gas prices per se, it does include Massachusetts existing policy for large-scale
conversion to renewable thermal heating technologies per the DOER-commissioned
CARTS study.10
This study did not consider MA H.4164 expansion of gas distribution and the effect of
this expansion on gas demand.11 Inclusion of gas distribution expansion has the
potential to change model results, to the extent that this expansion is not already
http://www.neep.org/sites/default/files/products/NEEP%20ICS2%20FINAL%20REPORT%202013Feb11-Website.pdf;
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/renewables/thermal/carts-report.pdf
MA H.4164 establishes a uniform classification standard for natural gas leaks. It also requires natural gas companies to repair
serious leaks immediately, produce a plan for removing all leak-prone infrastructure, and provide a summary of their
progress and a summary of work to be completed every five years.
19
accounted for in the LDCs heating gas demand forecasts through 2019 and the DOERbased growth rate for heating gas demand thereafter.12
The modeling analysis presented in this study includes the coal unit retirement
assumptions indicated in Table 2. Different assumptions have the potential to impact on
model results.
Table 2. Modeled coal retirements
Unit Name
State
Retirement date
Bridgeport Harbor 3
CT
6/1/2017
Salem Harbor 3
MA
6/1/2014
Mount Tom
MA
10/1/2014
Brayton Point 1
MA
6/1/2017
Brayton Point 2
MA
6/1/2017
Brayton Point 3
MA
6/1/2017
Mead 1 (103 MW)
ME
none
Schiller 4
NH
1/1/2020
Schiller 6
NH
1/1/2020
Merrimack ST1 (114 MW)
NH
none
Merrimack ST2 (345 MW)
NH
none
S A Carlson 5
NY
1/1/2016
Low energy demand case

The low energy demand case was designed by making adjustments to the base case. In the low energy
demand case, all alternative resources were utilized to the greatest extent that is determined to be
feasible (the methodology for this feasibility assessment is described in Section 3.4). In this scenario,
changes to public policy were assumed for Massachusetts only and not for the neighboring states.
Detailed modeling assumptions for the low energy demand case are presented in Appendix C.
Natural gas price sensitivity

We investigated the sensitivity of modeling results to both increases and decreases in the expected price
of natural gas. Figure 3 depicts the reference, low and high Henry Hub natural gas price forecasts for use
in this analysis.
12
According to background papers to the CECP, DOER assumed a 0.5-percent annual growth rate for Massachusetts gas
demand after 2020. See Exhibit EAS-13 to MA DPU 14-86.
20
Figure 3. Reference Henry Hub natural gas prices
For the electric sector monthly average Henry Hub price forecasts were then adjusted for projections of
the basis differential between Henry Hub and the Massachusetts (Algonquin) city gates designed to
reflect the higher basis when gas demand approaches or exceeds capacity. We assumebased on
preliminary modeling resultsthat the Massachusetts (and upstream) gas sector will remain out of
balance from 2015 to 2019, but will be in balance from 2020 through 2030. Detailed assumptions used
in the natural gas price sensitivity analysis are presented in Appendix D.
Caveats to natural gas price assumptions
This study explores the sensitivity of model results to the range in natural gas prices
described above. Still higher or lower natural gas prices have the potential to change
model results.
This study does not specifically examine the impact of natural gas exports on the
potential range of gas prices. The low and high gas prices used in sensitivities were the
Low and High Oil and Gas Resource Cases from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
and EIAs 2014 Annual Energy Outlook and were chosen to represent a range in future
gas supplies available from shale reserves. DOE/EIA explicitly recognizes the uncertainty
of gas availability from shale reserves and developed these alternate resource cases to
address it.
This study does not include a risk premium associated with natural gas price volatility.
21
This study does not incorporate the dramatic decline in world crude oil prices or the
decline in Henry Hub natural gas commodity prices that occurred during the course this
analysis. While these changes will have an impact on the energy market economics in
Massachusetts, and the annual cost estimates presented in this study, the DOE/EIA
latest Short Term Energy Outlook (December 2014) shows that retail gas prices in the
Northeast continue to have a significant price advantage over retail heating oil prices.13
Furthermore, prices that occur during the winter peak event are driven more from the
capacity constraints and pipeline basis differential prices than the cost of the
commodity.
Incremental Canadian transmission sensitivity

We investigated the sensitivity of modeling results to the addition of 2,400 MW of new, incremental
transmission of system power from Canada to the New England hub: one 1,200 MW line by 2018 and a
second by 2022. Note that this transmission is assumed to be heavily weighted to be composed of
hydroelectric-based generation, but includes power from other Canadian generators. Table 3
summarizes our basic assumptions for this sensitivity. We assume the capacity factor on these
incremental lines will be 75 percent on average on a winter peak day and 71 percent in a winter peak
hour. Our research underlying regarding Canadian transmission is presented in Appendix E. Note that
Massachusetts is assumed to receive all power from these linesas it would were the Commonwealth
to purchase renewable or clean energy certificates associated with the generation or enter into longterm contracts with the generatorsand therefore both pays the full costs of constructing the lines and
claims the full emissions reductions associated with generation imported on the lines.
13
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, December 2014, Table WF01, Average Consumer Prices
and Expenditures for Heating Fuels During the Winter.
22
Table 3. Incremental Canadian transmission assumptions

Canadian
Transmission
HVDC 1
Annual
Capacity
Factor
Total
Potential
Capacity
Annual Net
Levelized
Cost
Annual Net
Levelized
Cost
Annual
Energy
Production
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
MW
$/MWh
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
2015
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016-2020
67%
1,200
$100
$839
59,161,536
6,840
2021-2030
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Canadian
Transmission
HVDC 2
Annual
Capacity
Factor
Total
Potential
Capacity
Annual Net
Levelized
Cost
Annual Net
Levelized
Cost
Annual
Energy
Production
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
MMBtu / yr
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
2015
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2016-2020
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
2021-2030
50%
1,200
$147
$1,231
44,150,400
6,840
Caveats to incremental Canadian transmission assumptions
Both existing and incremental Canadian transmission is modeled as system power from
Qubec that is, generation and its associated emissions are assumed to be an average
or mix of Qubcois resources, and not dedicated transmission of hydroelectric or any
other resource. Average Qubcois electric generation is treated as having zero
greenhouse gas emissions in this study when in fact the emission rate associated with
14
Qubec imports is estimated to be 0.002 metric tons per MWh. Incorporating the
actual emissions associated with these imports in our study would have no appreciable
impact on total emissions or GWSA compliance.
While based on the most recent data for costs and in-service dates of proposed
transmission lines, in this study, Canadian transmission lines are generic and do not
represent any specific project. The costs and in-service dates of actual transmission lines
would be expected to vary from the generic lines represented here. Changes to costs or
in-service dates of these lines would be expected to impact model results.
3.4.
Feasibility Analysis for Low Energy Demand Scenario
The low energy demand case is modeled as the base case with the addition of the maximum amount of
alternative demand- and supply-side resources determined to be feasible. We performed feasibility
analyses for alternative resources for 2015, 2020 and 2030. All alternative resources assessed to be both
14
National Inventory Report 1990-2011, Part III. Environment Canada. 2013. p.71. Available at
http://unfccc.int/files/national_reports/annex_i_ghg_inventories/national_inventories_submissions/application/zip/can2013-nir-15apr.zip
23
technically feasible and practically achievable in Massachusetts for each year, but ignoring cost, were
included in the economic feasibility analysis. For each such resource, the ratio of annual net costs to
annual energy in MMBtu (annual-$/annual-MMBtu) was compared to a threshold for economic
feasibility.
The estimated annual cost of a generic, scalable natural gas pipeline is used as the threshold for
economic feasibility in this report. Using pipeline construction costs from the AIM project we assume a
95-percent utilization (chosen to represent the level of pipeline utilization at which operational flow
orders are typically declared and shippers are held to strict tolerances on their takes from the pipeline)
on 80 percent of winter days.15 This study assumes that incremental pipeline capacity consists of nonspecific generic projects that can be added in increments of 100,000 MMBtu per day and are in addition
to the existing and planned capacity defined above. Based on this calculation, the economic threshold
for including additional alternative resources in the model is $4/MMBtu.
Resources were assessed as either less or more expensive than the selected threshold:
If Annual-$/annual-MMBtu are less costly than the economic feasibility threshold, then
resources are included in the determination of the electric generation resource mix and electric
and gas loads in the low energy demand case.
If Annual-$/annual-MMBtu are more costly than the economic feasibility threshold, then
resources are not included in the low energy demand case.
Figure 4 provides a schematic of the role of feasibility analysis in this modeling project.
Figure 4. Feasibility analysis schematic
15
Algonquin Gas Transmission, AIM Project, FERC CP 14-96, February 2014
24
Measures included in the feasibility analysis meet two basic criteria:

1. These measures are incremental (i.e., over and above) the amounts of the same technologies
associated with the same policy measures included in the base case.
2. These measures are associated with expected annual MMBtu savings in the analysis year; that
is, they are technically and practically feasible.
For the purpose of the feasibility analysis, reduced natural gas consumption from displaced electric
generators is calculated using an 8.4 MMBtu/MWh heat rate. This is the average annual natural gas
16
marginal heat rate used by ISO-NE in 2013. Detailed assumptions and results of the feasibility analysis
are presented in Appendix A.
Table 4 reports the alternative measures included in the low energy demand case at the reference gas
price along with the total annual savings potential for this group of measures.17 Note that savings are
incremental from the base case and incremental from the previous year. Measures that do not have
annual MMBtu savings are included in the balancing phase of modeling (described in Section 3.5)
battery storage, pumped storage, demand response, and the ISO-NE Winter Reliability programand
not in the feasibility study.
16
17
2013 Assessment of the ISO-NE Electricity Markets. Potomac Economics. June 2014. p.44.
Synapse conducted two rounds of analysis of this group of measures; the first round analyzed gas use, emissions, and cost
impacts of a subset of these measures. After correcting for a calculation error in the supply curves, Synapse extrapolated the
impact of the first round of measures to the entire group. Results for 2015 were unchanged. Very minor corrections were
needed for 2020 in all gas price sensitivities, while 2030 saw a larger impact from these additional measures in each gas
price sensitivity. The final results shown throughout this report reflect these changes.
25
Table 4. Alternative measures included in low energy demand case at reference gas price
2015 Anaerobic digestion, landfill gas, converted hydro18, small CHP

2020 Appliance standards, residential electric energy efficiency, commercial
and industrial electric energy efficiency, anaerobic digestion, large CHP,
landfill gas, converted hydro, low-income electric energy efficiency, small
CHP, residential gas energy efficiency, commercial and industrial gas
energy efficiency, low-income gas energy efficiency, Class 1 biomass
power
2030 Residential gas energy efficiency, appliance standards, commercial and
industrial gas energy efficiency, low-income gas energy efficiency,
residential electric energy efficiency, commercial and industrial electric
energy efficiency, anaerobic digestion, large CHP, landfill gas, converted
hydro, small CHP, low-income electric energy efficiency, commercial PV,
residential PV, Class 1 biomass power, utility-scale PV, small wind, Class 5
large wind, Class 4 large wind, Class 2 biomass power
Total Annual
Savings Potential
(trillion Btu)
0.2
30.9
129.9
Feasibility supply curve results are dependent on the choice of natural gas price sensitivity: alternative
resources avoided different costs based on the assumed gas price. Overall, the results of the supply
curve analysis were not very sensitive to low gas prices: the same set of resources clear the economic
threshold in 2015 as in the reference gas price case. In 2020, one fewer resource clears with the low gas
price, representing less than 1 trillion Btu of the total 31 trillion Btu cleared savings in the reference
case. Sensitivity to the low gas price is greater in 2030, with two resources totaling 8 trillion Btu not
clearing the economic threshold as a result of lower gas prices, compared to total cleared savings of 130
trillion Btu. The model exhibits somewhat higher sensitivity to a change to higher gas prices. In 2015, the
higher gas price results in a new 2 billion Btu resource clearing the economic threshold, compared to
total cleared savings of 235 billion Btu. In 2020, two additional resources clear the economic threshold,
representing 9 trillion Btu cleared savings of the total 31 trillion Btu cleared savings in the reference
case. In 2030, two new resources clear the economic threshold, raising the total amount of cleared
savings from 130 trillion Btu to 264 trillion Btu. Detailed feasibility analysis results for the natural gas
price sensitivities are presented in Appendix A.
Caveats to feasibility analysis assumptions and methodology
18
In this study, only resources jointly deemed technically feasible and practically
achievable in Massachusetts for each year, given our best understanding of the pace of
policy change and resource implementation (but ignoring cost), were assessed for
The inclusion of converted hydro addresses energy potential only and does not take into account the other environmental
considerations which may be raised by the Commonwealths environmental agencies, such as the Department of Fish and
Game.
26
economic feasibility and potential inclusion in the low demand case. Technological
advancements and new information regarding the expected pace of policy change and
resource implementation would have the potential to result in the inclusion of different
resources in the feasibility analysis, different alternative measures included in the low
demand case and different model results for this case.
In this study, resources are deemed economically feasible if they are less expensive
than a threshold estimated as the per MMBtu cost of a generic, scalable natural gas
pipeline. The choice of this threshold determines what alternative resources are or are
not included in the low demand case. A different threshold for inclusion in the low
demand case would result in the inclusion of different alternative measures, and
different model results for the low demand case.
This study only includes alternative measures that could potentially result from changes
to Massachusetts policy, and not alternative measures brought about by policy changes
in other New England states.
The avoided costs attributed to alternative measures in this study are derived from the
AESC 2013 (see Appendix A). Since the publication of AESC 2013 there have been
changes to projected fuel prices, public policy, and the market structure in ISO-NE, all of
which are expected to be included in modeling for the AESC 2015 that is currently in
progress. Avoided costs modeled in AESC 2015 may be differenthigher or lowerthan
those modeled in AESC 2013.
Benefits to alternative measures not included in the low demand case include:
The avoided carbon cost of GWSA compliance (which was included only for
energy efficiency measures in this study consistent with DPU 14-86)
Non-energy benefits including improved health, or reduced health costs, and

new jobs related to alternative measures
Costs to alternative measures not included in this study have the potential, if
considered, to result in fewer resources deemed economic and included in the low
demand case, changing the results of that case. Potential costs not included in the
assessment of these measures include non-energy costs such as negative environmental
impacts from alternative resource siting.
The examination of possible alternative resources to be included in this feasibility

analysis was notand could not possibly becomprehensive. Alternatives resources
that were either not deemed to be reasonably available during the time frame of this
study or of limited potential capability were not included in the supply curves for
economic feasibility assessment. Resources not considered in the analysis include:
Solar panels installed on every sunny rooftop, and on every piece of land, where
the installation is technically feasible
Unrestricted deployment of neighborhood-shared and community-shared solar
27
3.5.
Solar energy with no net-metering cap or restriction and without any type of
restriction imposed by utility companies
Co-location of solar panels with food production or other land uses
Technological improvement in the lighting efficiency
A public education campaign in Massachusetts similar to Connecticuts Wait til

8 program
Solar energy backed by batteries as a separate alternative resource
Rate reforms such as peak time rebates and demand charges
Transmission for wind firmed by hydro
Smart appliances
All new affordable-housing units built as zero-net-energy or net positive energy

residences
Net zero carbon zoning codes
Voluntary trends towards green building
Conversion to electric vehicles
Relationship between Capacity and Demand
The Synapse Massachusetts gas-sector model designed for this analysis examines the relationship
between the Commonwealths natural gas demand and natural gas capacity in the winter peak hour.
This assessment of balance is accomplished as depicted in Figure 5:
Figure 5. Winter peak hour gas capacity and demand balancing schematic
28
First, in each scenario and year, heating demand (LDC, muni and capacity exempt gas demand less gas
energy efficiency, reductions from advanced building codes and renewable thermal technologies, and
(in the low demand case) other gas reduction demand measures) is compared with existing and planned
19
(AIM project) pipeline capacity and existing vaporization capacity from LDC-owned storage.
If heating demand is less than existing and planned pipeline capacity plus LDC-owned
storage, then the gas heating sector is in balance.
If heating demand is greater than existing and planned pipeline capacity plus LDCowned storage, then it is combined with electric demand as non-contracted demand
in the next step.
Next, non-contracted demand (the sum of shortages in gas heating and gas required for gas-fired
electric generation) is compared to balancing available from existing measures: Distrigas, Mystic LNG,
and Demand Response (in all years), and the ISO-NE Winter Reliability Program (through 2018).
If non-contracted demand is less than existing balancing measures, then the gas heating
and electric sector is in balance. Existing balancing measures are:
Distrigas is existing LNG vaporization capacity less what is dedicated to Mystic

directly available to the natural gas distribution system in Massachusetts.
Mystic LNG is existing LNG vaporization capacity directly available to the

Mystic generating facility.
Electric demand response (available 2015 to 2019) is added at a minimum

increment of 0.76 MMBtu of gas savings.
ISO-NEs Winter Reliability program (available 2015 to January 2018) is added at

a minimum increment of 1.0 MMBtu of gas savings.
Incremental pipeline (available 2020 through 2030) is added at a minimum

increment of 4.2 MMBtu per hour of gas.
If non-contracted demand is greater than existing balancing measures, the incremental

pipeline is added until a balance is achieved.
The balance criteria of gas demand no greater than 95-percent of gas capacity reflects the level of
pipeline utilization at which operational flow orders are typically declared and shippers are held to strict
tolerances on their takes from the pipeline. The impact of gas constraint on natural gas prices is thought
to begin when gas demand rises above 80-percent of gas capacity. Gas prices associated with out-ofbalance conditions are assumed in 2015 through 2019 in our model.
19
LDC-owned storage is existing LNG storage used to provide vaporization during the peak hour throughout the 12-day cold
snap. Propane storage is not available in this model as a balancing measure; existing propane storage facilities are sufficient
for a 3-day cold snap.
29
Caveats to capacity and demand balance assessment methodology
This study assumes that no additional LNG storage facilities will be sited in
Massachusetts during the study period. This is based on expected challenges related to
permitting, siting, financing and potential public opposition.
This study assumes additions of a generic natural gas pipeline, available in 4.2 peak hour
MMBtu increments and based on the per MMBtu costs of the AIM pipeline (see
Appendix B). Although pipeline increments are added based on the requirement in the
peak hour, incremental pipeline is assumed to be in use throughout the year. As a
result, we have levelized the cost of these pipeline increments over an entire year. If a
pipeline increment were only in use for a portion of the year, the implied levelized cost
would be different.
This study does not consider environmental impacts of pipeline siting and construction,
nor does it consider the environmental impacts of natural gas extraction, such as those
related to fracking.
This study does not consider pipeline investments potential displacement of alternative
resources, thereby slowing their growth.
This study analyzes Massachusetts capacity during a winter peak event hour assuming
that if demand exists, market forces will make it economic to utilize existing capacity.
We do not examine the ability of specific supply basins to produce natural gas, or the
impact on supply to Massachusetts of demand in other regions.
Gas capacity constraints shown in this analysis may be higher than what is shown in the
Forecast and Supply Plans filed by the Massachusetts LDCs due to the inclusion of
capacity-exempt customer demand. LDCs, by regulation, do not acquire gas supply
resources to serve capacity-exempt customers. Those customers, however, are firm gas
customers that place demands on the system. In MA-DPU 14-111, the Massachusetts
LDCs petitioned the DPU to allow them to acquire resources to serve up to 30 percent of
the capacity-exempt load. In that petition, the LDCs estimated that the total capacity
exempt load on a design day is approximately 294,200 Dth. The total capacity-exempt
load is included in our analysis.
Our analysis assumes LNG availability from Distrigas for import in the peak hour. If
natural gas from this source is not available in the peak hour, the ability for the natural
gas system to be in balance will be reduced.
For this analysis, we have assumed the full vaporization capacity of the Distrigas LNG
facility and the full capacity of the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline are available in the
peak hour. In order for markets to fully utilize this capacity, there must be sufficient
supply supporting those facilities. The Distrigas LNG terminal relies on imported LNG.
LNG markets are influenced by world supply and demand dynamics, which most
recently have made it difficult for imported LNG to compete in U.S. markets. These
dynamics have caused significant disruptions in deliveries to the Distrigas LNG facility in
Everett, MA over the past few years. Similarly, for the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline,
one of its primary supply sources is the Canaport LNG facility in St. John, New Brunswick,
Canada. That facility also relies exclusively on imported LNG, making its supply subject
30
to the same market dynamics as the Distrigas LNG. Sable Island production, another
major supply source for the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, is down to about 100
million cubic feet per day and there is speculation that production will soon cease.20 The
other major supply source for Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline is Encanas Deep Panuke
project in Nova Scotia. That project has recently reached full production of 300 million
cubic feet per day. However, according to Encana, the output is expected to drop to
below 200 million cubic feet per day in the fourth year and below 100 million cubic feet
per day by the eighth year.21
20
21
EIA. Production lookback 2013. January 2014. Available at http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/review/production/2013/.

Arugs Media. Deep Panuke startup could mitigate gas price spikes. August 2013. Available at
http://www.argusmedia.com/pages/NewsBody.aspx?id=860753&menu=yes
31
4. MODEL RESULTS
This section presents model results for Massachusetts natural gas capacity and demand. Table 5
provides a key to the scenarios.
Table 5. Scenario key
Scenario 1
Base Case
Reference
NG Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 2
Base Case
Low NG Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Base Case
Base Case
Reference
NG Price
High NG
Price
No Canadian
Transmission
2,400-MW
Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 5
Low Demand
Case
Reference
NG Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 6
Low Demand
Case
Low NG Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 7
Low Demand
Case
High NG
Price
No Canadian
Transmission
Scenario 8
Low Demand
Case
Reference
NG Price
2,400-MW
Canadian
Transmission
4.1.
Peak Hour Gas Shortages
Figure 6 displays the amount of winter peak hour supplyincluding existing pipeline, planned AIM
pipeline, plus available LNG vaporizationneeded to meet demand in Massachusetts during a winter
peak event in three scenarios selected to highlight the progression of reducing gas shortages from a
scenario with existing policies only, to the addition of technically and economically feasible alternative
resources, to the addition (inclusive of alternative measures) of new transmission from Canada:
Scenario 1: Base Case is the base case with reference natural gas price and no incremental
Canadian transmission,
Scenario 5: Low Demand is the low energy demand case with reference natural gas price and no
incremental Canadian transmission, and
Scenario 8: Low Demand + Incremental Canadian Transmission is the low energy demand case
with reference natural gas price and 2,400-MW incremental Canadian transmission.
The dark blue area represents the demand from LDCs, municipal entities, and capacity-exempt demand
in each year, which changes each year as a result of load growth and energy efficiency. Stacked on top in
light blue is the peak hour natural gas demand from the Massachusetts electric system, which varies
year-to-year as a result of the electric system reacting to changes in available resources and natural gas
prices.
In all scenarios, winter peak hour gas requirements are heavily weighted towards LDC and muni
demand. During the peak hour in 2015, on average across the scenarios, electric-system gas
requirements were just 9 percent of total Massachusetts natural gas demand. As electric system gas
32
consumption rises beginning in 2020 as natural gas price spikes decline, this value rises to 27 percent in
2020 and to 28 percent in 2030.
The solid line in Figure 6 represents existing and planned pipeline capacity and a dotted line represents
this pipeline capacity plus the additional LNG vaporization from both existing LDC storage and Distrigas
LNG. Any year in which the stacked blue columns exceed the dotted line is a year in which incremental
pipeline is required to balance the system. Scenario 5 (low demand, reference gas price, no incremental
Canadian transmission) and Scenario 8 (low demand, reference gas price, 2,400-MW incremental
Canadian transmission) both require less incremental pipeline than Scenario 1 (base case, reference gas
price, no incremental Canadian transmission) in every year.
33
Figure 6. Massachusetts peak hour demand and existing supply for Scenario 1, Scenario 5, and Scenario 8
34
Figure 7 reports gas capacity shortage and incremental pipeline required in a winter peak event in all
eight scenarios for 2020 and 2030 (in both years additional pipeline is reported as incremental to
existing and planned pipeline). Scenario 8 (low demand, reference gas price, 2,400 MW of incremental
Canadian transmission) has the smallest requirements. 2020 pipeline additions range from 25 billion Btu
per peak hour to 33 billion Btu per peak hour (0.6 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per day to 0.8 Bcf per day).22
2030 pipeline additions range from 25 billion Btu per peak hour to 38 billion Btu per peak hour (0.6 Bcf
to 0.9 Bcf per day.
Figure 7. Massachusetts gas capacity shortage in the winter peak hour in 2020 and 2030
From 2015 through 2019, electric generators have insufficient supply of natural gas, which results in
spiking natural gas prices. Scarcity-driven high natural gas prices will force economic curtailment of
natural gas-fired generators in favor of oil-fired units. The combination of increased oil utilization for
electricity generation together with the use of emergency measures such as demand response and the
ISO-NE Winter Reliability program (through January 2018) will allow electric demand to be met. From
2020 to 2030, existing and planned capacity plus incremental pipeline capacity balances system
requirements.
Critical to this result is the assumption that winter peak hour gas shortages cannot be met using known
measures (e.g. demand response or the addition of new natural gas pipeline) in years 2015 through
2019 and, as a result, gas prices are expected to reflect an out-of-balance market in those years. The
electric sector responds to these high prices by shifting dispatch from gas to oil generation in the peak
hour, reducing reliance on natural gas. In years 2020 through 2030, in contrast, winter peak hour gas
22
Billion Btu can be converted to Bcf by multiplying billion Btu by 24 hours per day then dividing by 1,022 Btu per cubic foot.
35
shortages can be met using known measures (incremental pipeline) and, as a result, gas prices are
expected to reflect an in-balance market in those years. The electric sector no longer has a price signal
to shift dispatch away from gas generation in the peak hour, greatly increasing gas requirements in
comparison to the previous period.
4.2.
Annual Natural Gas Demand
Figure 8, Figure 9, and Figure 10 display Massachusetts annual natural gas consumed for each scenario
in 2015, 2020, and 2030, respectively. In 2015, annual natural gas consumption is largely constant across
all scenarios, ranging from 417 to 427 trillion Btu per year (408 to 418 Bcf per year). In 2020, annual
natural gas consumption increases for Scenario 2 as a result of the low natural gas price modeled, while
it decreases in the low demand scenarios (Scenario 5 through 8) as a result of reduced natural gas
demand from alternative measures and, in Scenario 8, the addition of incremental Canadian
transmission. As a result, the range of annual natural gas consumption in 2020 is 439 to 523 trillion Btu
per year (430 to 512 Bcf per year). This trend continues in 2030 as low demand measures and
incremental Canadian transmission play a greater role in avoiding natural gas demand in selected
scenarios. The range of annual natural gas consumption in 2030 is 360 to 520 trillion Btu per year (352
to 509 Bcf per year).
Figure 8. Massachusetts annual gas demand in 2015
36
4.3.
Annual CO2 Emissions
Compliance with the Massachusetts 2008 climate lawthe GWSAis not a criterion for scenarios and
sensitivities; rather, the Massachusetts emissions associated with each scenario and sensitivity are an
output of the model. Massachusetts emissions are estimated according to the methodology set out in
the 2008-2010 Massachusetts Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and include emissions associated
37
with Massachusetts generation, out-of-state renewable energy certificate (REC) purchases, Canadian
system power imports for which the Commonwealth has a particular claim, and emissions from residual
sales as a share of imports from both out of state and out of region (see Appendix B for a more
23
complete description).
In MA-DPU Docket 14-86, the electric and buildings sectors in a GWSA compliant scenario have a
combined emission allocation of 29.7 million metric tons in 2020 and 19.1 million metric tons of CO2-e in
2030 (see Figures 2 and 5 of Corrected Amended Direct Testimony of Elizabeth A. Stanton, December 4,
2014, reproduced as Figure 11 here).24 Note that 2030 emission targets are not specified by GWSA; per
MA-DPU Docket 14-86 we have linearly interpolated the 2030 target based on the 2020 and 2050
targets. The allocation shown in Figure 11 is based on the assumption that emissions in the
transportation and non-energy sectors will follow the December 2010 Massachusetts Clean Energy and
Climate Plan for 2020 (CECP).
Figure 11. Massachusetts 2020 and 2030 GWSA compliant emissions
Of this allocation we expect that, following the CECP, direct use of oil will emit 6.4 million metric tons of
CO2-e in 2020 and 0.4 million metric tons in 2030.25 As a result, GWSA compliance cannot be achieved if
combined emissions from the electric sector and direct use of gas exceed 23.3 million metric tons in
2020 or 18.7 million metric tons in 2030 (see Table 6).
23
24
25
Note that imports from Canada include generation both from hydro resources and non-hydro resources.
In MA DPU 14-86 the Massachusetts Departments of Energy Resources and Environmental Protection jointly petitioned MADPU to commence an appropriate proceeding to determine whether the existing method of calculating the compliance
costs associated with GHG emissions should be replaced by the marginal abatement cost curve methodology.(Joint Petition,
May 26, 2014)
This estimate of 2020 and 2030 oil heating emissions is based on information presented in MA-DPU 14-86 Exhibit EAS-8 and
is calculated as oil heating business-as-usual emissions in those years less CECP emission reductions for oil heating in those
years.
38
Table 6. Emissions available under GWSA target
2020
2030
GWSA Target (% reduction below 1990 statewide levels)
25%
43%
GWSA Target (million metric tons CO2-e)
70.8
53.5
CECP Non-Energy Sector Emissions (million metric tons CO2-e)
9.3
7.9
CECP Transportation Sector Emissions (million metric tons CO2-e)
31.8
26.5
CECP Building and Electric Sector Target (million metric tons CO2-e)
29.7
19.1
CECP Building Sector Oil Emissions (million metric tons CO2-e)
6.4
0.4
Emissions Available under GWSA Gas Heating and Electric Target
23.3
18.7
The emissions available under GWSA gas heating and electric target shown in the last row of Table 6 is
a target for emission levels from natural gas heating and electricity generation that would allow the
GWSA 2020 limit to be met, taking into account expected emissions from other sectors. Calculation of
the target takes into account greenhouse gas emission reductions that could be achieved through
successful implementation of a suite of policies identified in the CECP to reduce demand and emissions
26
from the transport, non-energy and non-natural gas thermal sectors. The economy-wide 2020
greenhouse gas emissions limit of 70.8 million metric tons CO2-e, based on a 25 percent reduction from
1990 levels, will be achieved from a combination of strategies including reductions to building,
electricity, transportation, land use and non-energy emissions.
Total emissions from Massachusetts natural gas heating and electric sectors in 2020 and 2030 are
presented in Figure 12 and Figure 13. Each figure is overlaid with two horizontal lines: one showing
business-as-usual (BAU) emissions, and the other showing that years GWSA target for the natural gas
heating and electric sectors assuming that the non-energy, transportation and oil heating sectors will
meet their CECP targets. Percentages refer to the degree to which each scenario under- or over27
complies with the target. While no scenario achieves GWSA compliance in the heating gas and electric
sectors in 2020, Scenario 8 (low energy demand case with reference natural gas price and 2,400-MW
incremental Canadian transmission), shown below, and Scenario 7 (low energy demand case with high
natural gas price and no incremental Canadian transmission) meet compliance in 2030. Scenario 5 (low
energy demand with reference natural gas price and no incremental Canadian transmission) exceeds
2030 GWSA compliance by 0.4 million metric tons or 1 percent of the 2030 statewide emission target.
26
27
The CECP will be updated in 2015 as required by the GWSA, and every five years thereafter. This may result in revisions to
the share of greenhouse gas reductions expected from, or allocated to, the buildings, electric, transportation and nonenergy sectors in order to meet GWSA limits.
The GWSA target for the natural gas and electric sectors assumes emissions in the transportation and non-energy sectors
and direct use of oil as described in Appendix B.
39
Figure 12. Annual Massachusetts gas and electric sector emissions in 2020
Note: Percentages displayed in the above chart indicate the degree to which each scenario is above the 2020 GWSA target for
the gas and electric sectors. For example, the emissions in Scenario 1 are 26 percent higher than the 2020 GWSA target for the
gas and electric sectors.
The emission level for Scenario 8 is the closest to compliance with the 2020 GWSA target (for heating
and electric sectors), showing a 7-percent gap, equivalent to 1.6 million metric tons CO2-e. The
December 2013 GWSA 5-Year Progress Report also identified a potential shortfall in greenhouse gas
reductions by 2020 for the buildingsincluding energy efficiencyand the electric generation sectors.
The 2020 GWSA Target for gas heating and electric (23.3 million metric tons CO2) is a target that
would allow the GWSA 2020 emissions limit to be met, taking into account expected emissions from
other sectors. The GWSA limit for state-wide greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 of 71 million metric tons
CO2 (a 25-percent reduction from 1990 baseline greenhouse gas emission levels) will require a
combination of strategies including building, electricity, transportation, land use and non-energy
emissions.
The emission estimates for Scenarios 1 through 8 in Figure 12 assume implementation of current
Massachusetts policies. Scenarios 4 through 8 also include additional strategies determined to be
economically and technically feasible by 2020 per the criteria set by the study, but do not reflect
implementation of all policies considered in the CECP. Scenarios 4 and 8 include 2,400-MW of
incremental Canadian transmission, 1,200-MW in 2018 and another 1,200-MW in 2022.
If additional renewable energy measures with costs higher than economic threshold (modeled in this
study as the cost of incremental natural gas pipeline) were implemented for 2020 and 2030, this would
serve to reduce and potentially close the gap between emission estimates from the modeled scenarios
and the GWSA targets for the natural gas heating and electric sectors.
40
Figure 13. Annual Massachusetts gas and electric sector emissions in 2030
Note: Percentages displayed in the above chart indicate the degree to which each scenario is above the 2030 GWSA target for
the gas and electric sectors. For example, the emissions in Scenario 1 are 55 percent higher than the 2030 GWSA target for the
gas and electric sectors.
This approach assumes no change between 2020 and 2030 in the share of total reductions from the
transportation and non-energy sectors. Transportation-related emissions are expected to rise under the
CECPs business-as-usual assumptions. Policy impacts are expected to reduce emissions below businessas-usual levels. Incremental Canadian transmission is included for Scenario 4 and Scenario 8. Increased
use of renewable energy in 2030available at a higher cost than economic threshold used for this
studywould reduce the emissions gap between modeled scenarios and GWSA targets.
Caveats to GWSA target assumptions
Estimation of methane emissions from upstream leaks and other sources of emissions in
the natural gas systemas well as all other life-cycle emission impacts of Massachusetts
heating and electric sectorswas not in the scope of this study. Estimation of these
impacts has the potential to increase greenhouse gas emissions in all scenarios. Synapse
recommends that if life-cycle emission analysis is included in future scenarios it be
included for all heating fuel and electric generation and alternative resources, and not
for a subset of these resources.
Estimation of emissions from leaks in the Massachusetts natural gas distribution system
as well as potential emission reductions available from repairs to these leaks were not
included in this study. An ICF study of Massachusetts gas leaks commissioned by MADPU was not released in time for use in this study. Synapse recommends that this
information be considered in future studies. MA H.4164 establishes a uniform
classification standard for natural gas leaks. It also requires natural gas companies to
41
repair serious leaks immediately, produce a plan for removing all leak-prone
infrastructure, and provide a summary of their progress and a summary of work to be
completed every five years. The law further provides for the DPU to implement cost
recovery mechanisms for LDCs to recover in a timely manner the costs of accelerated
main replacement programs with intent of improving distribution system integrity, and
reducing leaks and emissions. Leaks associated with interstate pipelines located in
Massachusetts are minimal such that virtually all of methane emissions in
Massachusetts are from distribution system pipe.
This study does not analyze the impact that investments in pipeline infrastructure have
on increasing the Commonwealths long-term commitment to reliance on natural gas
and the potential impact of this reliance on GWSA compliance.
A Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2030 has not yet been developed. The 2030 GWSA
target is based on straight line extrapolation towards the 2050 limit and similar
allocation of relative reductions from each sector as was assigned for 2020 in CECP.
4.4.
Annual Costs
Figure 14 and Figure 15 depicts each scenarios annual costs as compared to costs in Scenario 1 (base
case, reference gas price, no incremental Canadian transmission), respectively. Costs captured in this
analysis are the costs that differ between the base case and other scenarios: the cost of gas delivery to
LDCs and municipal entities, the system costs of Massachusettss electric sector (estimated as product of
Massachusetts sales and the wholesale price of energy as determined in Market Analytics), capital costs
of new natural gas combine cycle plants needed to meet electric load, electric and gas energy efficiency,
implementation of time-varying rates, avoided price spikes, and, in the low demand case, costs
28
associated with gas and electric alternative resources.
28
Note that the costs associated with avoided price spikes are identical in all scenarios.
42
Figure 14. Annual costs for 2015-2030 as compared to Scenario 1, base case scenarios
Figure 15. Annual costs for 2015-2030 as compared to Scenario 1, low demand case scenarios
Table 7 reports the difference in each scenarios costs from that of Scenario 1 in net present value terms
over the study period (2015 to 2030), compared to 2030 pipeline requirements. The addition of
technically and economically feasible alternative measures (Scenario 5) adds $1,433 million in costs to
Scenario 1, while the addition of both these alternative measures and a 2,400-MW incremental
Canadian transmission (Scenario 8) adds $2,157 million in costs to Scenario 1. Note that in the low
natural gas price sensitivity, Massachusetts costs fall in comparison to scenarios run with the reference
43
gas price. While Scenario 2 (base case, low gas price sensitivity, no incremental Canadian transmission)
has $8.6 billion in cost savings compared to Scenario 1, Scenario 6 (low demand case, low gas price
sensitivity, no incremental Canadian transmission) has $0.3 billion in added costs compared to Scenario
1. This difference in costs is due to the costs of implementing the low demand measures included in
Scenario 6.
Table 7. Net present value of difference in cost from Scenario 1 (in millions of 2013 dollars), 2015-2030
compared to 2030 pipeline requirements
NPV
($ M)
2030 Pipeline
(Bcf/day)
Scen. 1
Scen. 2
Scen. 3
Scen. 4
Scen. 5
Scen. 6
Scen. 7
Scen. 8
$0
-$8,611
$5,384
$840
$1,433
$389
$15,112
$2,157
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
Note: Assumes a 1.36 percent real discount rate per AESC 2013, Appendix B
44
5. OBSERVATIONS
In this section we lay out our observations from these results.
Price sensitivity of winter peak hour requirements to gas prices

Massachusetts winter peak hour gas requirements are relatively insensitive to the range of gas prices
explored in this analysis. Energy services are relatively inelastic (price insensitive)particularly in the
short runand are modeled here as such. Changes to the gas price have a limited impact on dispatch in
the electric sector in the peak hour, but the dominance of gas in the dispatchable resource mix is,
already well established in 2015, only increasing over time. In contrast, annual gas requirements in the
electric sectorand, therefore, electric-sector greenhouse gas emissionsdo exhibit some sensitivity to
gas prices in the range explored. Annual scenario costs, however, are very sensitive to gas prices.
Impact of incremental Canadian transmission

Incremental Canadian transmission at the level explored in this analysis2,400-MWreduces
Massachusetts winter peak hour gas requirements in 2030. It also reduces annual gas requirements and
electric-sector greenhouse gas emissions while increasing overall costs.
Similarity in gas requirements across scenarios

Annual gas requirements across scenarios vary -10 to 7 percent per year from Scenario 1 (base case,
reference gas price, no incremental Canadian transmission) in 2020 and -26 to 7 percent in 2030.
Impact of alternative measures

At the reference natural gas price, alternative measures reduce Massachusetts gas requirements by 18
percent in 2030. The majority, or roughly 13 percentage points of this reduction, occurs in the electric
sector. Capturing additional costs avoided by alternativessuch as costs of compliance with state
environmental lawshas the potential to shift the economic feasibility assessments that determine this
result. Also, additional program incentives or policies not currently in place as well as a different
economic threshold could also impact the economic feasibility and resulting inclusion of additional
alternative measures.
45
APPENDIX A: FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS

Alternative resources were assessed for feasibility. Resources that are determined to have annual
MMBtu savings in 2015, 2020, or 2030 were included in that years supply curve. Resources with annual$/annual-MMBtu costs lower than an annual-$/annual-MMBtu cost economic threshold were modeled
in the low energy demand case.
Avoided Costs
In this feasibility analysis all measures are assessed in terms of their total annual costs in the study year
net of their avoided costs in that same year. As a proxy for analysis of avoided costs taking into
consideration the load shape and year of implementation for each resource, we use the AESC 2013
avoided energy, capacity, transmission, distribution, and environmental compliance costs for each study
year.29 Avoided capacity, transmission and distribution costs are adjusted in relation to each resources
ISO-NE capacity credit. For energy efficiency resources only, AESC 2013 base case avoided
environmental compliance costs are adjusted to include the costs of compliance with the GWSA, as
described in the current MA-DPU Docket 14-86.30 For all resources other than energy efficiency, avoided
environmental compliance costs follow the AESC 2013 base case adjusted as appropriate to each
resource (see Table 8).
29
30
We assume that avoided energy costs are roughly proportional to gas prices (see AESC 2013 8-2 to 8-3 in support of this
assumption). Using this assumption, we have updated the AESC 2013 avoided costs to reflect the natural gas prices used in
this analysis using this assumption.
MA-DPU 14-86, Amended Direct Testimony of Tim Woolf, September 11, 2014, Figure 4 represents these costs in levelized
form.
46
Table 8. Avoided cost assumptions
Electric Resources
Energy
Efficiency
Non-EE,
Distributed
Gas Resources
Non-EE,
Utility-Scale
AESC 2013
Electric, Adj.
for line
losses
Energy
Efficiency
Non-EE,
Distributed
AESC 2013
Natural Gas
AESC 2013
Natural Gas
Avoided Energy
$/MWh
AESC 2013
Electric
AESC 2013
Electric
Avoided
Environmental
Compliance
$/MWh
DPU 14-86
AESC 2013
Electric
AESC 2013
Electric
DPU 14-86
None
Avoided
Capacity
$/kW
AESC 2013
Electric
None
None
None
None
Avoided
Transmission
and
Distribution
$/kW
AESC 2013
Electric
AESC 2013
Electric
None
AESC 2013
Natural Gas
AESC 2013
Natural Gas
Non-Energy
Benefits
$/MWh
DPU 14-86
None
None
DPU 14-86
None
Capacity
Revenue
$/kW
None
AESC 2013
Electric
AESC 2013
Electric
None
None
Many of the resources explored in the feasibility analysis have an impact on removing gas capacity
constraints and, therefore, some impact on avoiding costs associated with constraint-elevated gas
prices. However, in keeping with our assumption that a balance between gas capacity and demand is
achieved in all scenarios, we do not capture this avoided cost here (although we do in modeling scenario
costs, as described below). Similarly, alternatives resources may avoid some share of the cost of a new
natural gas pipelineand pipelines may avoid the cost of new alternative resources. We do not attempt
to capture these costs in this feasibility analysis. Rather, we use the cost of a generic, scalable natural
gas pipeline as the economic threshold determining which of the alternative resources in the feasibility
analysis are included in the low demand case.
Resource Assessments
Synapse assessed 28 resources as potential alternative measures for inclusion in the low energy demand
case. Detailed tables showing assumption by year and resources are presented below in this Appendix.
Note that the costs described here use the reference natural gas price. Supply curves for all three
natural gas prices are presented below.
47
Wind
For on-shore wind installations 10 kilowatts (kW) or less, incremental to wind in the base case, we
assume a total potential capacity addition of 1 MW by 2015, 100 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 200 MW
from 2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of 16 percent. Annual levelized costs fall from $760
per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2015 to $592/MWh in 2030.31 (Net of avoided costs these values are
$655/MWh and $457/MWh, respectively.) These assumptions are based personal communications with
wind developers.32
For on-shore wind installation greater than 10 kW up to 100 kW, incremental to wind in the base case,
we assume a total potential capacity addition of 1 MW by 2015, 100 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 300
MW from 2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of 25 percent. Annual levelized costs fall from
$218/MWh in 2015 to $156/MWh in 2030. (Net of avoided costs these values are $123/MWh and
$32/MWh, respectively.) These assumptions are based on personal communications with wind
33
developers.
For Class 5 on-shore wind installation greater than 100 kW, incremental to wind in the base case, we
from 2021 to 2030 with annual capacity factors of 41 to 42 percent. Annual levelized costs fall from
$113/MWh in 2020 to $111/MWh in 2030. (Net of avoided costs these values are $38/MWh and
$8/MWh, respectively.) These assumptions are based on National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
supply curves for New England wind regions.
For Class 4 on-shore wind installation greater than 100 kW, incremental to wind in the base case, we
from 2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of 40 percent. Annual levelized costs are $118/MWh
in 2030. (Levelized costs net of avoided costs are $14/MWh in 2030.) These assumptions are based on
NREL supply curves for New England wind regions.
For off-shore wind installation, incremental to wind in the base case, we assume a total potential
capacity addition of 0 MW by 2015, 800 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 4,000 MW from 2021 to 2030 with
annual capacity factors of 44 to 45 percent. Annual levelized costs fall from $207/MWh in 2020 to
$162/MWh in 2030. (Net of avoided costs these values are $133/MWh and $59/MWh, respectively.)
These assumptions are based on NREL supply curves for New England wind regions.
In addition, we added costs to all large on-shore wind incremental to the base case, to represent the
levelized cost of new transmission necessary to deliver incremental wind from Maine south to the major
New England load centers. We assume a real, levelized cost of new transmission of $35 per MWh, based
31
32
33
All dollar values in the memo are report in real (inflation-adjusted) 2013 dollars
Personal Communications with Katrina Prutzman, Urban Green Energy. October 2014.
Personal Communications with Trevor Atkinson, Northern Power. October 2014.
48
on a cost of $2.15 billion for 1,200 MW of capacity recovered over 30 years. This cost assumption is from
work Synapse recently performed for DOER.34
Solar
For residential photovoltaic (PV) installations, incremental to PV in the base case, we assume a total
potential capacity addition of200 kW by 2015, 5 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 200 MW from 2021 to
2030 with an annual capacity factor of 13 percent. Annual levelized costs fall from $211/MWh in 2015 to
$163/MWh in 2030. (Net of avoided costs these values are $100/MWh and $19/MWh, respectively.)
These cost and capacity factor assumptions for 2015 and 2020 are based on work done in 2013 for
DOER;35 2030 assumptions are Synapse estimates.
For commercial PV installations, incremental to PV in the base case, we assume a total potential capacity
addition of 1.6 MW by 2015, 50 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 800 MW from 2021 to 2030 with an annual
capacity factor of 14 percent. Annual levelized costs fall from $184/MWh in 2015 to $149/MWh in 2030.
(Net of avoided costs these values are $75/MWh and $9/MWh, respectively.) These cost and capacity
factor assumptions for 2015 and 2020 are based on work done in 2013 for DOER; 2030 assumptions are
Synapse estimates.
For utility-scale PV installations, incremental to PV in the base case, we assume a total potential capacity
addition of 0 MW by 2015, 16 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 160 MW from 2021 to 2030 with an annual
capacity factor of 15 percent. Annual levelized costs fall from $162/MWh in 2020 to $118/MWh in 2030.
(Net of avoided costs these values are $76/MWh and $3/MWh, respectively.) These cost and capacity
factor assumptions for 2015 and 2020 are based on work done in 2013 for DOER; 2030 assumptions are
Synapse estimates.
Non-Powered Hydro Conversion

For hydro installations at dam sites that are not currently producing electricity, we assume a total
potential capacity addition of 500 kW by 2015, 61 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 56 MW from 2021 to
2030 with an annual capacity factor of 38 percent. Annual levelized costs are constant over the study
period at $63/MWh. (Net of avoided costs these values are -$35/MWh, -$37/MWh, and -$67/MWh,
respectively.) These assumptions are based on an Ohio Case study of converting a dam site to generate
electricity and the EIAs Annual Energy Outlook capital and operating costs forecast.36
34
35
36
Hornby, Rick, et al., Memorandum: Incremental Benefits and Costs of Large-Scale Hydroelectric Energy Imports, prepared by
Synapse Energy Economics for the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, November 1, 2013.
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/doer/rps-aps/doer-post-400-task-1.pdf
http://www.hydro.org/tech-and-policy/developing-hydro/powering-existing-dams/
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/pdf/updated_capcost.pdf
49
Landfill Gas
For landfill gas installations, incremental to landfill gas in the base case, we assume a total potential
capacity addition of 300 kW by 2015, 20 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 6 MW from 2021 to 2030 with an
annual capacity factor of 78 percent. Annual levelized costs are constant over the study period at
$38/MWh. (Net of avoided costs these values fall from -$47/MWh in 2015 to -$75/MWh in 2030.) These
assumptions are based on the 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Landfill Gas Energy study.37
Anaerobic Digestion
For anaerobic digestion installations, incremental to anaerobic digestion in the base case, we assume a
total potential capacity addition of 300 kW by 2015, 20 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 6 MW from 2021 to
2030 with an annual capacity factor of 90 percent. Annual levelized costs are constant over the study
period at $47/MWh. (Net of avoided costs these values fall from -$54/MWh in 2015 to -$83/MWh in
2030.) These assumptions are based on a 2003 Wisconsin case study presented in the Focus on Energy
Anaerobic Digester Methane to Energy statewide assessment.
38
Biomass
For biomass Class 1 installations (with fuel costs of $3/MMBtu), incremental to biomass in the base case,
we assume a total potential capacity addition of 0 MW by 2015, 20 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 20 MW
from 2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of 80 percent. Annual levelized costs are constant over
the study period at $110/MWh. (Net of avoided costs these values fall from $27/MWh in 2020 to
-$2/MWh in 2030.) These assumptions are based on analyses by EIA, Black & Veatch, and Office of
39
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE).
For biomass Class 2 installations (with fuel costs of $4/MMBtu), incremental to biomass in the base case,
we assume a total potential capacity addition of 0 MW by 2015, 40 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 40 MW
the study period at $128/MWh. (Net of avoided costs these values fall from $44/MWh in 2020 to
$15/MWh in 2030.) These assumptions are based on analyses by EIA, Black & Veatch, and EERE.
For biomass Class 3 installations (with fuel costs of $10/MMBtu), incremental to biomass in the base
case, we assume a total potential capacity addition of 0 MW by 2015, 40 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 60
MW from 2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of 80 percent. Annual levelized costs are constant
over the study period at $214/MWh. (Net of avoided costs these values fall from $130/MWh in 2020 to
37
38
39
http://epa.gov/statelocalclimate/documents/pdf/landfill_methane_utilization.pdf
http://www.mrec.org/pubs/anaerobic_report.pdf
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/pdf/updated_capcost.pdf; http://bv.com/docs/reports-studies/nrel-costreport.pdf; http://www1.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/billion_ton_update.pdf
50
For biomass Class 4 installations (with fuel costs of $13/MMBtu), incremental to biomass in the base
case, we assume a total potential capacity addition of 0 MW by 2015, 50 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 70
MW from 2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of 80 percent. Annual levelized costs are constant
over the study period at $259/MWh. (Net of avoided costs these values fall from $175/MWh in 2020 to
CHP
For small combined heat and power (CHP) installations (estimated as 500 kW reciprocating engines),
incremental to CHP in the base case, we assume a total potential capacity addition of 5 MW by 2015, 35
MW from 2016 to 2020, and 65 MW from 2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of 50 percent.
Annual levelized costs rise from $135/MWh in 2015 to $153/MWh in 2030. (Net of avoided costs these
values are -$12/MWh and -$34/MWh, respectively.) These assumptions are based on ICFs 2013 The
Opportunity for CHP in the U.S. report.40
For large combined heat and power (CHP) installations (estimated as 12.5 MW combustion turbines),
incremental to CHP in the base case, we assume a total potential capacity addition of 0 MW by 2015, 25
MW from 2016 to 2020, and 50 MW from 2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of67 percent.
Annual levelized costs rise from $77/MWh in 2020 to $84/MWh in 2030. (Net of avoided costs these
values are -$46/MWh and -$78/MWh, respectively.) These assumptions are based on ICFs 2013 The
Opportunity for CHP in the U.S. report.
Electric Energy Efficiency

For residential electric energy efficiency installations, incremental to efficiency in the base case, we
the study period at $9/MWh. (Net of avoided costs these values are -$108/MWh in 2020 and $128/MWh in 2030.) These assumptions are based on the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan
as modeled in DPU 14-86.
For commercial and industrial electric energy efficiency installations, incremental to efficiency in the
base case, we assume a total potential capacity addition of 0 MW by 2015, 113 MW from 2016 to 2020,
and 380 MW from 2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of 55 percent. Annual levelized costs are
constant over the study period at $31/MWh. (Net of avoided costs these values are -$86/MWh in 2020
and -$107/MWh in 2030.) These assumptions are based on the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate
Plan as modeled in DPU 14-86.
For low-income electric energy efficiency installations, incremental to efficiency in the base case, we
assume a total potential capacity addition of 0 MW by 2015, 3 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 7 MW from
40
http://www.aga.org/Kc/analyses-andstatistics/studies/efficiency_and_environment/Documents/The%20Opportunity%20for%20CHP%20in%20the%20United%20
States%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf
51
2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of %55 percent. Annual levelized costs are constant over
the study period at $104/MWh. (Net of avoided costs these values are -$13/MWh and -$33/MWh,
respectively.) These assumptions are based on the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan as
modeled in DPU 14-86.
Efficiency costs are modeled from program administrators three-year plan data and are assumed to be
the same on a $/MWh basis as the costs used for the base case. If efficiency costs were, instead,
assumed to increase for additional increments of efficiency, even the efficiency sector with the highest
costslow-income gas measureswould require a cost escalation of more than 80 percent to exceed
the economic threshold.
Federal Appliance Standard

For federal appliance standards, incremental to federal standards in the base case, we assume a total
potential capacity addition of 0 MW by 2015, 216 MW from 2016 to 2020, and 619 MW from 2021 to
2030 with an annual capacity factor of 55 percent. Annual levelized costs rise from -$205/MWh in 2020
to -$205/MWh in 2030. (Net of avoided costs these values are -$390/MWh and -$343/MWh,
respectively.) These savings and cost assumptions are based on the Massachusetts Clean Energy and
Climate Plan as modeled in DPU 14-86.
Heat Pumps
For air source heat pump installation, incremental to heat pumps in the base case, we assume a total
potential capacity addition of 6,307 annual MMBtu by 2015, 75,686 annual MMBtu from 2016 to 2020,
and 1,127,727 annual MMBtu from 2021 to 2030. Annual levelized costs rise from $18/MMBtu in 2015
to $26/MMBtu in 2030. (Net of avoided costs these values are $17/MMBtu and $25/MMBtu,
respectively.) These savings assumptions are based on DOERs assessment of the gas savings available
from the measures described in Navigants 2013 Incremental Cost Study Phase Two Final Report, the
41
Commonwealth Accelerated Renewable Thermal Strategy and information from vendors. Cost
42
assumptions are based on a 2010 NREL webinar, Residential Geothermal Heat Pump Retrofits.
For ground source heat pump installation, incremental to heat pumps in the base case, we assume a
total potential capacity addition of 1,577 annual MMBtu by 2015, 18,922 annual MMBtu from 2016 to
2020, and 281,932 annual MMBtu from 2021 to 2030. Annual levelized costs rise from $16/MMBtu in
2015 to $22/MMBtu in 2030. (Net of avoided costs these values are $15/MMBtu and $20/MMBtu,
respectively.) These savings and cost assumptions are based on DOERs assessment of the gas savings
41
42
http://energy.gov/eere/wipo/downloads/doe-webinar-residential-geothermal-heat-pump-retrofits-presentation
52
available from the measures described in Navigants 2013 Incremental Cost Study Phase Two Final
Report, the Commonwealth Accelerated Renewable Thermal Strategy and information from vendors.43
Solar Hot Water

For solar hot water installation, incremental to solar hot water in the base case, we assume a total
potential capacity addition of 1573 annual MMBtu by 2015, 18,896 annual MMBtu from 2016 to 2020,
and 281,607 annual MMBtu from 2021 to 2030. Annual levelized costs rise from $53/MMBtu in 2015 to
$86/MMBtu in 2030. (Net of avoided costs these values are $9/MMBtu and $32/MMBtu, respectively.)
These savings assumptions are based on DOERs assessment of the gas savings available from the
measures described in Navigants 2013 Incremental Cost Study Phase Two Final Report, the
44
Commonwealth Accelerated Renewable Thermal Strategy and information from vendors. Cost
assumptions are based on communications with solar hot water vendors.
Thermal Biomass
For thermal biomass installation, incremental to thermal biomass in the base case, we assume a total
potential capacity addition of 6291 annual MMBtu by 2015, 75,586 annual MMBtu from 2016 to 2020,
and 1,126,428 annual MMBtu from 2021 to 2030. Annual levelized costs are constant over the study
period at $16/MMBtu. (Net of avoided costs these values are $9/MMBtu in 2015 and $7/MMBtu in
2020.) Cost and savings assumptions are based on DOERs assessment of the gas savings available from
the measures described in Navigants 2013 Incremental Cost Study Phase Two Final Report, the
45
Commonwealth Accelerated Renewable Thermal Strategy and information from vendors.
Gas Energy Efficiency

For residential gas energy efficiency installation, incremental to efficiency in the base case, we assume a
total potential capacity addition of 0 annual MMBtu by 2015, 3,758,369 annual MMBtu from 2016 to
2020, and 5,290,473 MMBtu from 2021 to 2030. Annual levelized costs are constant over the study
period at -$72/MMBtu. (Net of avoided costs these values are -$78/MMBtu in 2015 and -$79/MMbtu in
20230.) These assumptions are based on the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan as modeled
in DPU 14-86.
For commercial and industrial gas energy efficiency installation, incremental to efficiency in the base
case, we assume a total potential capacity addition of 0 annual MMBtu by 2015, 4,121,834 annual
MMBtu from 2016 to 2020, and 9,748,498 annual MMBtu from 2021 to 2030. Annual levelized costs are
43
44
45
53
constant over the study period at -$17/MMBtu. (Net of avoided costs these values are -$23/MMBtu in
2020 and -$25/MMBtu in 2030.) These assumptions are based on the Massachusetts Clean Energy and
Climate Plan as modeled in DPU 14-86.
For low-income gas energy efficiency installation, incremental to efficiency in the base case, we assume
a total potential capacity addition of 0 annual MMBtu by 2015, 584,036 annual MMBtu from 2016 to
2020, and 1,818,671 annual MMBtu from 2021 to 2030. Annual levelized costs are constant over the
study period at -$9/MMBtu. (Net of avoided costs these values are -$15/MMBtu in 2020 and
-$17/MMBtu in 2030.) These assumptions are based on the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate
Plan as modeled in DPU 14-86.
Efficiency costs are modeled from program administrators three-year plan data and are assumed to be
the same on a $/MWh basis as the costs used for the base case. If efficiency costs were, instead,
assumed to increase for additional increments of efficiency, even the efficiency sector with the highest
costslow-income gas measureswould require a cost escalation of more than 80 percent to exceed
the economic threshold.
Feasibility Analysis Results

The feasibility analysis methodology employed in this report compares measures annual-$/annualMMBtu to thresholds for economic feasibility in annual-$/annual MMBtu. Supply curves for 2015, 2020
and 2030 using the reference natural gas price are displayed in Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18, and
Table 9, Table 10, and Table 11. Measures with negative annual net levelized costs (i.e., net benefits) are
shown in blue while measures with positive annual net levelized costs are shown in red. Due to large
differences in the scale of resource availability, the supply curve for 2015 is presented in billion Btu and
the supply curves for 2020 and 2030 are presented in trillion Btu. Table 12, Table 13, and Table 14
summarize the cost and savings for each measure available for each scenario in the Reference natural
gas price case, while Table 21, Table 22, and Table 23 provide additional detail on costs and savings.
Note that savings for each scenario remain the same across different natural gas prices, but net costs
may change as a result of different avoided costs.
Supply curves for 2015, 2020 and 2030 using the low natural gas price are displayed in Table 15, Table
16, and Table 17. Supply curves for 2015, 2020 and 2030 using the high natural gas price are displayed in
Table 18, Table 19, and Table 20.
54
Figure 16. Reference natural gas price supply curve for 2015 (billion Btu)
Table 9. Reference natural gas price supply curve for 2015 (billion Btu)
Annual Net
Annual Savings
Levelized Cost
Potential
($/MMBtu)
(billion Btu)
Anaerobic Digestion
-$6
20
Landfill Gas
-$6
17
Converted Hydro
-$4
14
Small CHP
-$1
184
$4
Pipeline @ 80% winter usage

5
Biomass Thermal
$9
Commercial PV
$9
21
Solar Hot Water
$9
Residential PV
$12
Wind (<100 kW)
$15
18
10
GS Heat Pump
$15
11
AS Heat Pump
$17
12
Wind (<10 kW)
$78
12
55
Figure 17. Reference natural gas price supply curve for 2020 (trillion Btu; note unit change from previous figures)
56
Table 10. Reference natural gas price supply curve for 2020 (trillion Btu)
Annual Net
Annual Savings
Levelized Cost
Potential
($/MMBtu)
(trillion Btu)
Res. Gas EE
-$78
Appliance Standards
-$46
CI Gas EE
-$23
LI Gas EE
-$15
Res. Electric EE
-$13
CI Electric EE
-$10
Anaerobic Digestion
-$6
Landfill Gas
-$5
Large CHP
-$5
10
Converted Hydro
-$4
11
LI Electric EE
-$2
0.1
12
Small CHP
$0.4
13
Biomass Power C1
$3
$4

14
Large Wind C5
$5
15
Biomass Power C2
$5
16
Utility-Scale PV
$9
0.2
17
Biomass Thermal
$9
0.1
18
Wind (<100 kW)
$10
19
Commercial PV
$11
20
Residential PV
$13
0.05
21
Biomass Power C3
$16
22
Offshore Wind
$16
26
23
GS Heat Pump
$16
0.02
24
AS Heat Pump
$20
0.1
25
Biomass Power C4
$21
26
Solar Hot Water
$24
0.02
27
Wind (<10 kW)
$68
57
Figure 18. Reference natural gas price supply curve for 2030 (trillion Btu)
58
Table 11. Reference natural gas price supply curve for 2030 (trillion Btu)
59
Table 12. Reference gas price resource assessment summary for 2015
Electricity Technologies
Annual
Total
Capacity
Potential
Factor
Capacity
MW
$/MWh
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
Wind (<10 kW)
16%
$655
$78
11,773
Wind (<100 kW)
25%
$123
$15
18,396
Technology
Annual Net
Annual Net
Levelized Cost Levelized Cost
Large Wind C5
no incremental capacity available by 2015
Large Wind C4
Offshore Wind
Utility-Scale PV
Annual
Energy
Production
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
Commercial PV
14%
$75
$9
21,192
Residential PV
13%
$100
$12
2,391
Large CHP
Small CHP
50%
-$12
-$1
183,960
19
Landfill Gas
78%
-$47
-$6
17,325
Anaerobic Digestion
90%
-$54
-$6
19,868
Biomass Power C1
Biomass Power C2
Biomass Power C3
Biomass Power C4
Converted Hydro
38%
-$35
-$4
14,000
Res. Electric EE
55%
-$117
-$14
LI Electric EE
55%
-$22
-$3
CI Electric EE
55%
-$96
-$11
Appliance Standards
Direct Gas Reduction Technologies

Annual
Total
Capacity
Potential
Factor
Capacity
MW
$/MWh
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
AS Heat Pump
0%
$0
$17
6,307
GS Heat Pump
0%
$0
$15
1,577
Solar Hot Water
0%
$0
$9
1,573
Biomass Thermal
0%
$0
$9
6,291
10
Res. Gas EE
0%
$0
-$78
LI Gas EE
0%
$0
-$15
CI Gas EE
0%
$0
-$23
Technology
Annual Net
Annual Net
Annual
Energy
Production
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
60
Annual
Total
Capacity
Potential
Factor
Capacity
MW
$/MWh
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
Wind (<10 kW)
16%
100
$572
$68
1,177,344
266
Wind (<100 kW)
25%
100
$84
$10
1,839,600
266
Large Wind C5
41%
200
$38
$5
6,033,888
532
Technology
Large Wind C4
Annual Net
Annual Net
Annual
Energy
Production
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
Assuming wind projects built in 2020 are constructed in best wind locations (i.e., C5)
Offshore Wind
44%
800
$133
$16
25,901,568
2,128
Utility-Scale PV
15%
16
$76
$9
216,337
Commercial PV
14%
50
$91
$11
662,256
Residential PV
13%
$106
$13
47,830
Large CHP
67%
25
-$46
-$5
1,232,532
59
Small CHP
50%
35
$3
$0
1,287,720
136
Landfill Gas
78%
20
-$46
-$5
1,155,000
144
Anaerobic Digestion
90%
20
-$52
-$6
1,324,512
144
Biomass Power C1
80%
20
$27
$3
1,177,344
144
Biomass Power C2
80%
40
$44
$5
2,354,688
289
Biomass Power C3
80%
40
$130
$16
2,354,688
289
Biomass Power C4
80%
50
$175
$21
2,943,360
361
Converted Hydro
38%
61
-$37
-$4
1,708,000
440
Res. Electric EE
55%
28
-$108
-$13
1,147,100
118
LI Electric EE
55%
-$13
-$2
138,528
14
CI Electric EE
55%
113
-$86
-$10
4,577,386
473
Appliance Standards
55%
216
-$390
-$46
8,736,000
902

Annual
Total
Capacity
Potential
Factor
Capacity
MW
$/MWh
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
AS Heat Pump
0%
$0
$20
75,686
104
GS Heat Pump
0%
$0
$16
18,922
26
Solar Hot Water
0%
$0
$24
18,896
Biomass Thermal
0%
$0
$9
75,586
125
Res. Gas EE
0%
$0
-$78
3,758,369
236
LI Gas EE
0%
$0
-$15
584,036
37
CI Gas EE
0%
$0
-$23
4,121,834
259
Technology
Annual Net
Annual Net
Annual
Energy
Production
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
61
Annual
Total
Capacity
Potential
Factor
Capacity
MW
$/MWh
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
Wind (<10 kW)
16%
200
$457
$54
2,354,688
532
Wind (<100 kW)
25%
300
$32
$4
5,518,800
798
Large Wind C5
42%
480
$8
$1
14,834,534
1,277
Large Wind C4
40%
800
$14
$2
23,546,880
2,128
Offshore Wind
45%
4,000
$59
$7
132,451,200
10,640
Utility-Scale PV
15%
160
$3
$0
2,163,370
Commercial PV
14%
800
$9
$1
10,596,096
Residential PV
13%
200
$19
$2
2,391,480
Large CHP
67%
50
-$78
-$9
2,465,064
118
Small CHP
50%
65
-$34
-$4
2,391,480
252
Landfill Gas
78%
-$75
-$9
346,500
43
Anaerobic Digestion
90%
-$83
-$10
397,354
43
Biomass Power C1
80%
20
-$2
$0
1,177,344
144
Biomass Power C2
80%
40
$15
$2
2,354,688
289
Biomass Power C3
80%
60
$102
$12
3,532,032
433
Biomass Power C4
80%
70
$146
$17
4,120,704
505
Converted Hydro
38%
56
-$67
-$8
1,568,000
404
Res. Electric EE
55%
64
-$128
-$15
2,604,729
269
LI Electric EE
55%
-$33
-$4
301,858
31
CI Electric EE
55%
380
-$107
-$13
15,382,106
1,589
Appliance Standards
55%
619
-$343
-$41
25,048,800
2,587
Technology
Annual Net
Annual Net
Annual
Energy
Production
Peak Hour
Gas Savings

Annual
Total
Capacity
Potential
Factor
Capacity
MW
$/MWh
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
AS Heat Pump
0%
$0
$25
1,127,727
1,549
GS Heat Pump
0%
$0
$20
281,932
387
Solar Hot Water
0%
$0
$32
281,607
Biomass Thermal
0%
$0
$7
1,126,428
1,869
Res. Gas EE
0%
$0
-$79
5,290,473
332
LI Gas EE
0%
$0
-$17
1,818,671
114
CI Gas EE
0%
$0
-$25
9,748,498
612
Technology
Annual Net
Annual Net
Annual
Energy
Production
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
62
Table 15. Low natural gas price supply curve for 2015 (billion Btu)
Annual Net
Annual Savings
Levelized Cost
Potential
($/MMBtu)
(billion Btu)
Anaerobic Digestion
-$5
20
Landfill Gas
-$5
17
Converted Hydro
-$3
14
Small CHP
$0.02
184
$4

5
Biomass Thermal
$9
Commercial PV
$10
21
Residential PV
$13
GS Heat Pump
$15
Wind (<100 kW)
$16
18
10
Solar Hot Water
$17
11
AS Heat Pump
$18
12
Wind (<10 kW)
$79
12
63
Table 16. Low natural gas price supply curve for 2020 (trillion Btu; note unit change from previous table)
Annual Net
Annual Savings
Levelized Cost
Potential
($/MMBtu)
(trillion Btu)
Res. Gas EE
-$77
Appliance Standards
-$45
CI Gas EE
-$22
LI Gas EE
-$14
Res. Electric EE
-$11
CI Electric EE
-$8
Anaerobic Digestion
-$5
Landfill Gas
-$4
Large CHP
-$4
10
Converted Hydro
-$3
11
LI Electric EE
$0.3
0.1
12
Small CHP
$2
$4

13
Biomass Power C1
$4
14
Large Wind C5
$6
15
Biomass Power C2
$7
16
Utility-Scale PV
$10
0.2
17
Biomass Thermal
$11
0.1
18
Wind (<100 kW)
$11
19
Commercial PV
$12
20
Residential PV
$14
0.05
21
Biomass Power C3
$17
22
GS Heat Pump
$17
0.02
23
Offshore Wind
$17
26
24
AS Heat Pump
$20
0.1
25
Biomass Power C4
$22
26
Solar Hot Water
$39
0.02
27
Wind (<10 kW)
$70
64
Table 17. Low natural gas price supply curve for 2030 (trillion Btu)
Annual Net
Annual Savings
Levelized Cost
Potential
($/MMBtu)
(trillion Btu)
Res. Gas EE
-$79
Appliance Standards
-$38
25
CI Gas EE
-$23
10
LI Gas EE
-$15
Res. Electric EE
-$12
CI Electric EE
-$10
15
Anaerobic Digestion
-$7
0.4
Landfill Gas
-$7
0.3
Large CHP
-$6
10
Converted Hydro
-$6
11
LI Electric EE
-$1
0.3
12
Small CHP
-$0.1
13
Biomass Power C1
$2
14
Utility-Scale PV
$3
15
Large Wind C5
$3
15
16
Commercial PV
$4
11
17
Large Wind C4
$4
24
18
Biomass Power C2
$4
$4

19
Residential PV
$5
20
Wind (<100 kW)
$6
21
Offshore Wind
$9
132
22
Biomass Thermal
$10
23
Biomass Power C3
$14
24
Biomass Power C4
$20
25
GS Heat Pump
$21
0.3
26
AS Heat Pump
$26
27
Wind (<10 kW)
$57
28
Solar Hot Water
$68
0.3
65
Table 18. High natural gas price supply curve for 2015 (billion Btu)
Annual Net
Annual Savings
Levelized Cost
Potential
($/MMBtu)
(billion Btu)
Anaerobic Digestion
-$8
20
Landfill Gas
-$7
17
Converted Hydro
-$5
14
Small CHP
-$3
184
Solar Hot Water
$1
$4

6
Biomass Thermal
$7
Commercial PV
$8
21
Residential PV
$10
Wind (<100 kW)
$13
18
10
GS Heat Pump
$15
11
AS Heat Pump
$17
12
Wind (<10 kW)
$77
12
66
Table 19. High natural gas price supply curve for 2020 (trillion Btu; note unit change from previous table)
Annual Net
Annual Savings
Levelized Cost
Potential
($/MMBtu)
(trillion Btu)
Res. Gas EE
-$80
Appliance Standards
-$50
CI Gas EE
-$25
LI Gas EE
-$17
Res. Electric EE
-$16
CI Electric EE
-$14
Anaerobic Digestion
-$9
Large CHP
-$9
Landfill Gas
-$8
10
Converted Hydro
-$7
11
LI Electric EE
-$5
0.1
12
Small CHP
-$3
13
Biomass Power C1
$1
14
Large Wind C5
$2
15
Biomass Power C2
$3
$4

16
Utility-Scale PV
$7
0.2
17
Wind (<100 kW)
$7
18
Biomass Thermal
$7
0.1
19
Commercial PV
$8
20
Residential PV
$10
0.05
21
Biomass Power C3
$13
22
Offshore Wind
$13
26
23
Solar Hot Water
$13
24
GS Heat Pump
$16
0.02
25
Biomass Power C4
$18
26
AS Heat Pump
$20
0.1
27
Wind (<10 kW)
$65
67
Table 20. High natural gas price supply curve for 2030 (trillion Btu)
Annual Net
Annual Savings
Levelized Cost
Potential
($/MMBtu)
(trillion Btu)
Res. Gas EE
-$79
Appliance Standards
-$49
25
CI Gas EE
-$28
10
Res. Electric EE
-$24
CI Electric EE
-$21
15
LI Gas EE
-$20
Large CHP
-$18
Anaerobic Digestion
-$17
0.4
Landfill Gas
-$16
0.3
10
Converted Hydro
-$15
11
Small CHP
-$13
12
LI Electric EE
-$13
0.3
13
Biomass Power C1
-$7
14
Utility-Scale PV
-$6
15
Commercial PV
-$6
11
16
Large Wind C5
-$6
15
17
Large Wind C4
-$5
24
18
Residential PV
-$5
19
Biomass Power C2
-$5
20
Wind (<100 kW)
-$3
21
Offshore Wind
$0.4
132
22
Biomass Thermal
$4
$4

23
Biomass Power C3
$5
24
Biomass Power C4
$11
25
GS Heat Pump
$20
0.3
26
AS Heat Pump
$26
1.1
27
Solar Hot Water
$31
0.3
28
Wind (<10 kW)
$47
68
Table 21. Reference gas price resource assessment for 2015

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
Annual
Avoided
Avoided
(n)
(o)
(p)
Annual Net
Annual Net
(q)
(r)
Technology
Annual
Total
Annual
Annual
Capacity
Potential
Energy
Energy
Factor
Capacity
Production
Production
Real
Installed Cost
Lifetime
Levelization
Rate
Annual Fixed
Annual
O&M
Variable O&M
Annual
Levelized Fuel
Cost
Levelized Cost Energy Cost Capacity Cost
Payment
Proxy
Winter Load
Carrying
Capcity
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
MW
MWh
MMBtu NG
$/kW
Yrs
$/kW-yr
$/MWh
$/MMBtu
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
Wind (<10 kW)
16%
1.0
1,402
11,773
$11,500
20
9.0%
$25
$0
$0
$760
$79
$26
$655
$78
35%
Wind (<100 kW)
25%
1.0
2,190
18,396
$5,000
20
9.0%
$25
$0
$0
$218
$79
$16
$123
$15
35%
Large Wind C5
Large Wind C4
Offshore Wind
Utility-Scale PV
$/MWh
Capacity
Commercial PV
14%
1.6
2,523
21,192
$2,593
25
8.0%
$25
$0
$0
$184
$79
$30
$75
$9
0%
Residential PV
13%
0.2
285
2,391
$2,842
25
7.6%
$25
$0
$0
$211
$79
$33
$100
$12
0%
Large CHP
Small CHP
50%
21,900
183,960
$2,181
10
15.4%
$0
$11
$11
$135
$107
$39
-$12
-$1
95%
19
Landfill Gas
78%
0.3
2,063
17,325
$1,421
20
9.0%
$132
$0
$0
$38
$73
$12
-$47
-$6
95%
Anaerobic Digestion
90%
0.3
2,365
19,868
$4,102
20
9.0%
$0
$0
$0
$47
$79
$22
-$54
-$6
95%
$2,083
30
9.3%
$14
$0
$0
Biomass Power C1
Biomass Power C2
Biomass Power C3
Biomass Power C4
Converted Hydro
38%
0.5
1,667
14,000
$63
$73
-$35
-$4
95%
Res. Electric EE
55%
$9
$89
$37
-$117
-$14
55%
LI Electric EE
55%
$104
$89
$37
-$22
-$3
55%
CI Electric EE
55%
$31
$89
$37
-$96
-$11
55%
Annual
Avoided
Avoided
Appliance Standards
$24

Potential
Technology
Energy
Real
Installed Cost
Lifetime
Production
Levelization
Rate
Annual Fixed
Annual
O&M
Variable O&M
Annual
Levelized Fuel
Cost

$/MMBtu
Capacity
Payment
Proxy
$/MMBtu
Annual Net
Levelized Cost
Winter Load
Carrying
Capcity
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
MMBtu NG
$/MMBtu
Yrs
$/MMBtu-yr
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
AS Heat Pump
6,307
$281,898
15
11%
$2,000
$0
$50
$18
$7
$17
95%
GS Heat Pump
1,577
$324,979
15
11%
$2,000
$0
$50
$16
$7
$15
95%
Solar Hot Water
1,573
$53
15
11%
$0
$0
$3,250
$53
$7
$9
17%
Biomass Thermal
6,291
$367,964
15
11%
$879
$0
$4.63
$16
$7
$9
95%
10
Res. Gas EE
-$72
$6
-$78
55%
LI Gas EE
-$9
$6
-$15
55%
CI Gas EE
-$17
$6
-$23
55%
69

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
Annual
Avoided
Avoided
(n)
(o)
(p)
Annual Net
Annual Net
(q)
(r)
Technology
Annual
Total
Annual
Annual
Capacity
Potential
Energy
Energy
Factor
Capacity
Production
Production
Real
Installed Cost
Lifetime
Levelization
Rate
Annual Fixed
Annual
O&M
Variable O&M
Annual
Levelized Fuel
Cost
Payment
Proxy
Winter Load
Carrying
Capcity
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
MW
MWh
MMBtu NG
$/kW
Yrs
$/kW-yr
$/MWh
$/MMBtu
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
Wind (<10 kW)
16%
100
140,160
1,177,344
$9,200
20
9.0%
$115
$0
$0
$676
$74
$29
$572
$68.12
35%
266
Wind (<100 kW)
25%
100
219,000
1,839,600
$4,000
20
9.0%
$25
$0
$0
$177
$74
$19
$84
$10
35%
266
Large Wind C5
41%
200
718,320
6,033,888
$2,359
20
9.7%
$50
$0
$0
$113
$69
$6
$38
$5
35%
532
Large Wind C4
$/MWh
Capacity
Assuming wind projects built in 2020 are constructed in best wind locations (i.e., C5)
Offshore Wind
44%
800
3,083,520
25,901,568
$5,600
20
12.2%
$115
$0
$0
$207
$69
$6
$133
$16
35%
2,128
Utility-Scale PV
15%
16.00
25,754
216,337
$2,233
25
8.7%
$16
$0
$0
$162
$69
$18
$76
$9
0%
Commercial PV
14%
50
78,840
662,256
$2,842
25
8.0%
$24
$0
$0
$199
$74
$34
$91
$11
0%
Residential PV
13%
5,694
47,830
$2,943
25
7.6%
$24
$0
$0
$217
$74
$37
$106
$13
0%
Large CHP
67%
25
146,730
1,232,532
$1,750
20
9.7%
$0
$5
$7
$77
$90
$33
-$46
-$5
95%
59
Small CHP
50%
35
153,300
1,287,720
$2,457
10
15.4%
$0
$11
$12
$148
$101
$44
$3
$0
95%
136
Landfill Gas
78%
20
137,500
1,155,000
$1,421
20
9.0%
$132
$0
$0
$38
$69
$15
-$46
-$5
95%
144
Anaerobic Digestion
90%
20
157,680
1,324,512
$4,102
20
9.0%
$0
$0
$0
$47
$74
$25
-$52
-$6
95%
144
Biomass Power C1
80%
20
140,160
1,177,344
$4,175
30
8.0%
$105
$11
$3
$110
$69
$15
$27
$3
95%
144
Biomass Power C2
80%
40
280,320
2,354,688
$4,175
30
8.0%
$105
$11
$4
$128
$69
$15
$44
$5
95%
289
Biomass Power C3
80%
40
280,320
2,354,688
$4,175
30
8.0%
$105
$11
$10
$214
$69
$15
$130
$16
95%
289
Biomass Power C4
80%
50
350,400
2,943,360
$4,175
30
8.0%
$105
$11
$13
$259
$69
$15
$175
$21
95%
361
Converted Hydro
38%
61
203,333
1,708,000
$2,083
30
9.3%
$14
$0
$0
$63
$69
$31
-$37
-$4
95%
440
Res. Electric EE
55%
28
136,560
1,147,100
$9
$74
$42
-$108
-$13
55%
118
LI Electric EE
55%
16,491
138,528
$104
$74
$42
-$13
-$2
55%
14
CI Electric EE
55%
113
544,927
4,577,386
$31
$74
$42
-$86
-$10
55%
473
Appliance Standards
55%
216
1,040,000
8,736,000
-$273
$74
$42
-$390
-$46
55%
902
Annual
Avoided
Avoided

Potential
Technology
Energy
Real
Installed Cost
Lifetime
Production
Levelization
Rate
Annual Fixed
Annual
O&M
Variable O&M
Annual
Levelized Fuel
Cost
Payment
Proxy
$/MMBtu
Annual Net
Levelized Cost
Winter Load
Carrying
Capcity
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
MMBtu NG
$/MMBtu
Yrs
$/MMBtu-yr
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
AS Heat Pump
75,686
$281,898
15
11%
$2,000
$0
$59
$20
$6
$20
95%
104
GS Heat Pump
18,922
$324,979
15
11%
$2,000
$0
$59
$18
$6
$16
95%
26
Solar Hot Water
18,896
$62
15
11%
$0
$0
$3,824
$62
$6
$24
17%
Biomass Thermal
75,586
$367,964
15
11%
$879
$0
$4.80
$16
$6
$9
95%
125
236
Res. Gas EE
$/MMBtu
Capacity
3,758,369
-$72
$6
-$78
55%
LI Gas EE
584,036
-$9
$6
-$15
55%
37
CI Gas EE
4,121,834
-$17
$6
-$23
55%
259
70

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
(j)
(k)
(l)
(m)
Annual
Avoided
Avoided
(n)
(o)
(p)
Annual Net
Annual Net
(q)
(r)
Technology
Annual
Total
Annual
Annual
Capacity
Potential
Energy
Energy
Factor
Capacity
Production
Production
Real
Installed Cost
Lifetime
Levelization
Rate
Annual Fixed
Annual
O&M
Variable O&M
Annual
Levelized Fuel
Cost

$/MWh
Capacity
Payment
Proxy
Winter Load
Carrying
Capcity
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
MW
MWh
MMBtu NG
$/kW
Yrs
$/kW-yr
$/MWh
$/MMBtu
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MWh
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
Wind (<10 kW)
16%
200
280,320
2,354,688
$8,050
20
9.0%
$102
$0
$0
$592
$105
$30
$457
$54
35%
532
Wind (<100 kW)
25%
300
657,000
5,518,800
$3,500
20
9.0%
$25
$0
$0
$156
$105
$19
$32
$4
35%
798
Large Wind C5
42%
480
1,766,016
14,834,534
$2,359
20
9.7%
$50
$0
$0
$111
$97
$6
$8
$1
35%
1,277
Large Wind C4
40%
800
2,803,200
23,546,880
$2,460
20
9.7%
$50
$0
$0
$118
$97
$7
$14
$2
35%
2,128
Offshore Wind
45%
4,000
15,768,000
132,451,200
$4,760
20
11%
$102
$0
$0
$162
$97
$6
$59
$7
35%
10,640
Utility-Scale PV
15%
160
257,544
2,163,370
$1,600
25
8.7%
$14
$0
$0
$118
$97
$18
$3
$0
0%
Commercial PV
14%
800
1,261,440
10,596,096
$2,075
25
8.0%
$22
$0
$0
$149
$105
$35
$9
$1
0%
Residential PV
13%
200
284,700
2,391,480
$2,150
25
7.6%
$22
$0
$0
$163
$105
$39
$19
$2
0%
Large CHP
67%
50
293,460
2,465,064
$1,750
20
9.7%
$0
$5
$8
$84
$127
$34
-$78
-$9
95%
118
Small CHP
50%
65
284,700
2,391,480
$2,457
10
15.4%
$0
$11
$13
$153
$142
$46
-$34
-$4
95%
252
Landfill Gas
78%
41,250
346,500
$1,421
20
9.0%
$132
$0
$0
$38
$97
$16
-$75
-$9
95%
43
Anaerobic Digestion
90%
47,304
397,354
$4,102
20
9.0%
$0
$0
$0
$47
$105
$26
-$83
-$10
95%
43
Biomass Power C1
80%
20
140,160
1,177,344
$4,175
30
8.0%
$105
$11
$3
$110
$97
$15
-$2
$0
95%
144
Biomass Power C2
80%
40
280,320
2,354,688
$4,175
30
8.0%
$105
$11
$4
$128
$97
$15
$15
$2
95%
289
Biomass Power C3
80%
60
420,480
3,532,032
$4,175
30
8.0%
$105
$11
$10
$214
$97
$15
$102
$12
95%
433
Biomass Power C4
80%
70
490,560
4,120,704
$4,175
30
8.0%
$105
$11
$13
$259
$97
$15
$146
$17
95%
505
Converted Hydro
38%
56
186,667
1,568,000
$2,083
30
9.3%
$14
$0
$0
$63
$97
$32
-$67
-$8
95%
404
Res. Electric EE
55%
64
310,087
2,604,729
$9
$94
$44
-$128
-$15
55%
269
LI Electric EE
55%
35,936
301,858
$104
$94
$44
-$33
-$4
55%
31
CI Electric EE
55%
380
1,831,203
15,382,106
$31
$94
$44
-$107
-$13
55%
1,589
Appliance Standards
55%
619
2,982,000
25,048,800
-$205
$94
$44
-$343
-$41
55%
2,587
Annual
Avoided
Avoided

Potential
Technology
Energy
Real
Installed Cost
Lifetime
Production
Levelization
Rate
Annual Fixed
Annual
O&M
Variable O&M
Annual
Levelized Fuel
Cost
Payment
Proxy
$/MMBtu
Annual Net
Levelized Cost
Winter Load
Carrying
Capcity
Peak Hour
Gas Savings
MMBtu NG
$/MMBtu
Yrs
$/MMBtu-yr
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu
$/MMBtu NG
MMBtu NG
AS Heat Pump
1,127,727
$281,898
15
11%
$2,000
$0
$82
$26
$9
$25
95%
1,549
GS Heat Pump
281,932
$324,979
15
11%
$2,000
$0
$82
$22
$9
$20
95%
387
Solar Hot Water
281,607
$86
15
11%
$0
$0
$5,353
$86
$9
$32
17%
Biomass Thermal
1,126,428
$367,964
15
11%
$879
$0
$5.16
$16
$9
$7
95%
1,869
Res. Gas EE
5,290,473
-$72
$8
-$79
55%
332
LI Gas EE
1,818,671
-$9
$8
-$17
55%
114
CI Gas EE
9,748,498
-$17
$8
-$25
55%
612
$/MMBtu
Capacity
71
APPENDIX B: BASE CASE ASSUMPTIONS

Overview: The base case energy resource mix and demand model expected conditions under existing
policy measures.
Gas prices: Reference natural gas prices are monthly NYMXEX prices escalated annually in proportion to
the annual percentage changes in the Henry Hub prices from the 2014 AEO Reference Case (Tab 13, line
44). Monthly average Henry Hub price forecasts were then adjusted for projections in the basis
differential between Henry Hub and the Massachusetts city gates designed to reflect the higher basis
when gas demand is highest. Based on preliminary modeling results, we assume that the Massachusetts
(and upstream) gas sector will remain out of balance from 2015 through 2019, but will be in balance
from 2020 through 2030. In 2015 through 2019, we use a winter basis estimate as the daily November
to March difference between Henry Hub and Algonquin City Gate daily prices in 2013/2014. For the
summer months in 2015 through 2019, and for all months in the remaining years, we assume one
constant basis differential for every day, calculated as the average difference between Henry Hub and
Algonquin City Gate daily prices in the April through October of 2014. See Figure 3 and Figure 19.
Canadian transmission: There is no transmission from Canada incremental to what exists today. We
used Ventyxs default assumptions to depict existing transmission from Canada, and use these
assumptions in each of the model runs.
Carbon prices: The electric-sector carbon allowance price in the electricity sector is the Avoided Energy
Supply Costs in New England: 2013 Report (AESC 2013) carbon price forecast46 (see Figure 2); GWSA
compliance is not a criterion for scenarios and sensitivities; rather, the Massachusetts emissions
associated with each scenario and sensitivity are an output of the model.
Greenhouse gas emissions: Electric-sector emissions are calculated in the Market Analytics model.
Massachusetts share of these emissions is estimated using a methodology based on the 2008-2010
Massachusetts Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: all emissions from the Commonwealths electric
generator; emissions associated with Massachusetts purchase of out-of-state RECs and its claim on lowemission imports; a share of the residual New England electric emissions based on Massachusetts
requirements above its own generation, out-of-state REC purchases and claim on low-emission imports;
and a share of the emissions from Quebec and the Maritimes based on New Englands requirements
above its own generation, out-of-state REC purchases and claim on low-emission imports.
Gas sector emissions (other than electric) are calculated as MMBtus of annual demand multiplied by a
weighted average emissions rate for residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation sectors per
46
Hornby et al. 2013. Exhibit 4-1. Column 6 Synapse CO2 emission allowance price.
72
AEO 2014.47 In each year, the weighted average emissions rate for all non-electric system natural gas
demand is about 0.053 metric tons per MMBtu, or about 116 lbs per MMBtu.
GWSA compliance: GWSA compliance for years 2020 and 2030 was determined using data from the
MA-DPU 14-86 docket by assuming that emissions from sectors other than gas or electric would (1)
would be the same under all scenario-and-sensitivity assumptions, and (2) would approximate levels
anticipated given the policy measures described in Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for
2020.48 Scenarios in which Massachusetts emits more than 23.3 million metric tons of CO2 in 2020 in gas
and electric sectors or more than 18.7 million metric tons in these sectors in 2030 do not achieve GWSA
compliance (see Table 6). The 2030 GWSA reduction target below 1990 statewide levels of 43 percent
was estimated following the method used in DPU 14-86: A linear trend was drawn between the
Commonwealths 2020 and 2050 emission reduction targets.
Energy efficiency: Reductions to load from energy efficiency were modeled based on program
administrators data as filed with the Department of Public Utilities, extended into the future using the
following assumptions: (1) for states other than Massachusetts energy efficiency budgets remain
constant over time in real terms; and (2) for Massachusetts energy efficiency remains constant as a
share of load from 2015 through 2030. For Massachusetts electric efficiency: annual savings are 2.5
percent of program administrators transmission-and-distribution-adjusted load in each year. For
Massachusetts gas efficiency: annual savings are 1.1 percent of annual retail sales. Data on energy
efficiency savings at winter peak were derived from the program administrators three-year reports.
Costs are reported in Appendix A.
Time varying rates: Based on DPUs June 2014 Order 14-04 on time-varying rates we assume annual
savings of 0.3 percent (2-percent annual savings assuming an 82-percent of customers on basic service
49
out of the 37-percent residential share of load and a 50-percent opt in rate). We assume winter peak
savings 2.0 percent on the winter peak hour (13-percent average winter peak savings among four test
groups modeled by Navigant assuming an 82-percent of customers on basic service out of the 37percent residential share of load and a 50-percent opt in rate). Costs were estimated as a cost of $100
smart thermostat rebates paid in once in 2015 and again in 2025 (assuming a 10-year measure life).
Advanced Building Codes: Based on the assumptions in the Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate
Plan for 2020 (CECP), we assumed savings of 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 reductions to be available
from the Advanced Building Code policy currently in place in Massachusetts in 2020 and 2030.50 Of
47
48
49
50
AEO 2014, Table 2.1 and Table 18.1. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/

MA-DPU 14-86, Amended Direct Testimony of Elizabeth A. Stanton, September 11, 2014, Exhibits EAS-8 and EAS-13. CECP
building sector oil emissions were calculated as the Updated business-as-usual buildings sector oil emission less
anticipated oil energy efficiency and other CECP program savings.
MA-DPU 14-04-B, Anticipated Policy Framework for Time Varying Rates, June 12, 2014,
http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dpu/orders/d-p-u-14-04-b-order-6-12-14.pdf. See also, Navigant (2014) NSTAR Smart Grid
Pilot: Final Technical Report. Prepared for the U.S. DOE on behalf of NSTAR Gas and Electric Corporation.
Massachusetts Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Massachusetts Clean Energy and Climate Plan for 2020. 2010.
73
these reductions, we assume 0.9 million metric tons of reductions come from avoided natural gas
consumption in both 2020 and 2030, using the ratio of natural gas to oil consumption in the business-asusual case for each year as modeled in DPU 14-86. Using the average emission rate of residential natural
gas consumption (0.053 metric tons per MMBtu), these emission reductions were then translated into
MMBtu reductions. Given that this is an existing policy, costs are assumed to be zero.
Renewable thermal technologies: Based on the assumptions in Navigants 2013 Incremental Cost Study
Phase Two Final Report, the Commonwealth Accelerated Renewable Thermal Strategy and information
from vendors, we assumed reduced CO2 emissions of 1.2 million metric tons in 2020 and 5.8 million
metric tons as a result of existing renewable thermal policy.51 Per DOER, we assume 15 percent of the
emission reductions from this existing policy take place in the form of reduced residential natural gas
consumption (85 percent of CO2 reductions apply to oil use). Using the average emission rate of
residential natural gas consumption (0.053 metric tons per MMBtu), these emission reductions were
then translated into MMBtu reductions. Given that this is an existing policy, costs are assumed to be
zero. The renewable thermal reductions listed in the above supply curves (air- and ground-source heat
pumps, solar hot water, and biomass thermal) are assumed to be incremental to the CARTS study, per
DOER.
Demand response: Electric demand response is available as a balancing agent (discussed below) but not
otherwise included in modeling.
Winter Reliability program: The ISO-NE Winter Reliability program is available as a balancing agent
(discussed below) but not otherwise included in modeling.
Distributed generation: We modeled distributed resources using ISO-NEs PV Energy Forecast Update by
52
state, held constant after 2020. Total New England annual distributed generation is 1,695 GWh. Costs
are reported in Appendix A.
Retirements: We modeled the retirements from current capacity shown in Table 24.
51
52
ISO-NE, PV Energy Forecast Update: Distributed Generation Forecast Working Group presentation, December 15, 2014,
Holyoke, MA. Slide 8.
74
Table 24. Unit retirements

Unit Name
Framingham 1
Framingham 2
Framingham 3
Mystic 7
Mystic J1
Salem Harbor 3
Salem Harbor 4
Waters River 1
West Medway 1
West Medway 2
Middletown 2
Middletown 3
Middletown 4
Montville 5
Montville 6
Norwich (North Main) 5
Norwalk Harbor 1
Norwalk Harbor 10
Norwalk Harbor 2
Bridgeport Harbor 2
Bridgeport Harbor 3
New Haven Harbor 1
Borden 1
Borden 2
Burnside 1
Burnside 2
Burnside 3
Burnside 4
Caribou ST CS1
Caribou ST CS2
Charlottetown 10
Charlottetown 7
Charlottetown 8
Charlottetown 9
Courtenay Bay 2
Tusket 1
Victoria Junction 1
Victoria Junction 2
Cherry Street 12
Lost Nation GT 1
Schiller 4
Schiller 6
Arthur Kill 1
Astoria GT 1
Astoria GT 11
Astoria GT 12
Astoria GT 13
Astoria GT 2-1
Astoria GT 2-2
Astoria GT 2-3
Astoria GT 2-4
Astoria GT 3-1
Region
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
Boston
CT NE Centr
CT NE Centr
CT NE Centr
CT NE Centr
CT NE Centr
CT NE Centr
CT Norwalk
CT Norwalk
CT Norwalk
CTSW
CTSW
CTSW
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
Maritimes
NEMA
NH
NH
NH
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Fuel type Retirement

FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2019
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2019
Coal
6/1/2014
FO#6 NPCC
6/1/2014
NG
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2017
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2017
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#6 NPCC
6/1/2017
FO#2 NPCC
6/1/2017
FO#6 NPCC
6/1/2017
FO#6 NPCC
6/1/2017
Coal
6/1/2017
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2023
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2026
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2026
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2026
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2026
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2013
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2015
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2028
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2015
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2023
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2025
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2025
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2025
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2019
Coal
1/1/2020
Coal
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2017
FO#2 NPCC
5/1/2014
FO#2 NPCC
5/1/2014
FO#2 NPCC
5/1/2014
NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2016
Unit Name
Astoria GT 3-2
Astoria GT 3-3
Astoria GT 3-4
Astoria GT 4-1
Astoria GT 4-2
Astoria GT 4-3
Astoria GT 4-4
Astoria GT 5
Astoria GT 7
Astoria GT 8
Astoria ST2
Barrett G1
Barrett G1
Barrett G10
Barrett G11
Barrett G12
Barrett G2
Barrett G3
Barrett G4
Barrett G5
Barrett G6
Barrett G7
Barrett G8
Barrett G9
Charles P Keller 12
Charles P Keller 13
Danskammer 2
East Hampton 1
East River 6
East River 7
Freeport 1 4
Freeport 2 3
Glenwood GT1
Glenwood GT2
Glenwood GT3
Gowanus 1-1
Gowanus 1-2
Gowanus 1-3
Gowanus 1-4
Gowanus 1-5
Gowanus 1-6
Gowanus 1-7
Gowanus 1-8
Gowanus 2-1
Gowanus 2-2
Gowanus 2-3
Gowanus 2-4
Gowanus 2-5
Gowanus 2-6
Gowanus 2-7
Gowanus 2-8
Gowanus 3-1
Region
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY

NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2016
NG
5/1/2014
NG
5/1/2014
NG
5/1/2014
NG
7/30/2015
NG
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2021
NG
1/1/2021
NG
1/1/2021
NG
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2021
NG
1/1/2017
NG
1/1/2024
NG
1/1/2014
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
NG
1/1/2026
NG
1/1/2015
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2014
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2023
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2017
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2021
NG
1/1/2021
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
75
Table 13. Unit retirements (continued)

Unit Name
Gowanus 3-2
Gowanus 3-3
Gowanus 3-4
Gowanus 3-5
Gowanus 3-6
Gowanus 3-7
Gowanus 3-8
Gowanus 4-1
Gowanus 4-2
Gowanus 4-3
Gowanus 4-4
Gowanus 4-5
Gowanus 4-6
Gowanus 4-7
Gowanus 4-8
Hillburn GT 1
Holtsville 1
Holtsville 10
Holtsville 2
Holtsville 3
Holtsville 4
Holtsville 5
Holtsville 6
Holtsville 7
Holtsville 8
Holtsville 9
Hudson Ave 4
Hudson Ave GT3
Hudson Ave GT5
Indian Point 2 GT1
Indian Point GT 2
Indian Point GT 3
L Street Jet 1
Narrows Gen 1
Narrows Gen 2
Narrows Gen 21
Narrows Gen 22
Narrows Gen 23
Narrows Gen 24
Narrows Gen 25
Narrows Gen 26
Narrows Gen 27
Narrows Gen 3
Narrows Gen 4
Narrows Gen 5
Narrows Gen 6
Narrows Gen 7
Narrows Gen 8
Northport GT1
Port Jefferson GT1
Ravenswood 143
Ravenswood G1
Region
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY

FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
NG
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2024
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2025
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2024
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2024
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2024
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2024
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2025
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2025
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2025
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2025
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2019
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2016
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
NG
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2017
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2016
NG
1/1/2025
NG
1/1/2017
Unit Name
Ravenswood G10
Ravenswood G11
Ravenswood G21
Ravenswood G22
Ravenswood G23
Ravenswood G24
Ravenswood G31
Ravenswood G32
Ravenswood G33
Ravenswood G4
Ravenswood G5
Ravenswood G6
Ravenswood G7
Ravenswood G9
Rochester 9 2
S A Carlson 5
Shoemaker GT 1
Shoreham GT 1
Shoreham GT 2
Southhold 1
West Babylon GT 4
West Coxsackie 1
Cadillac GT 1
Cadillac GT 2
Cadillac GT 3
La Citiere GT 1
La Citiere GT 3
La Citiere GT 4
Brayton Point 1
Brayton Point 2
Brayton Point 3
Brayton Point 4
West Medway 3
Canal 1
Canal 2
Cleary 8
Somerset (MA) 2
Cape GT 4
Cape GT 5
Wyman-Yarmouth 1
Wyman-Yarmouth 2
Wyman-Yarmouth 3
Wyman-Yarmouth 4
Ascutney GT 1
Burlington NPCC 1
Gorge (Colchester) 1
Cabot 6
Cabot 8
Cabot 9
Mount Tom
West Springfield 3
Region
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
SEMA
SEMA
SEMA
SEMA
SME
SME
SME
SME
SME
SME
VT
VT
VT
WCMA
WCMA
WCMA
WCMA
WCMA

NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
NG
1/1/2019
Coal
1/1/2016
NG
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2016
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2014
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
NG
1/1/2019
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2027
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2026
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2027
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2030
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2030
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2029
Coal
6/1/2017
Coal
6/1/2017
Coal
6/1/2017
FO#6 NPCC
6/1/2017
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2017
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2017
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2020
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2022
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2013
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2021
FO#2 NPCC
1/1/2015
NG
1/1/2015
NG
1/1/2013
NG
1/1/2013
Coal
10/1/2014
FO#6 NPCC
1/1/2022
76
Additions: In addition to any generic natural-gas combined cycle units added to achieve reliability
requirements, our electric-sector model includes the following new units and upgrades:
Footprint Power Combined Cycle unit as of June 1, 2017 at 674 MW; located in ISO-NE
Boston at the Salem Harbor site.
Cape Wind as of January 1, 2016 at 136 MW, capacity increases on January 1, 2017 to
365 MW; located in ISO-NE SEMA.
Northfield Mountain pumped storage capacity increases to 1,119.2 MW in 2015.
Capital costs: Capital costs of avoiding new NGCC construction are calculated using values from AEO
2014.53 Capital costs associated with alternative, low-demand resources are discussed but not reported
Appendix A.
Benefit of eliminating constraint-elevated prices: The benefit of eliminating elevated prices and price
spikes related to natural gas capacity constrains is estimated as the product of base case gas demand in
each month of each year modeled and the difference between two average natural gas price bases for
that month: (1) the 2015 price basis; and (2) the actual model year basis.
Electric sales data: Electric sales, before demand-side measures, were taken from ISO-NEs CELT 2014.
Electric capacity data: The base case electric generation resource mix was modeled using the Market
Analytics scenario designed by Synapse for DOER in early 2014 to provide an accurate presentation of
Green Communities Act (GCA) policies as well as the Renewable Portfolio Standardsby classof the
six New England states. Synapses GCA analysis for DOER was developed using the NERC 9.5 dataset,
based on the Ventyx Fall 2012 Reference Case. We verified and updated these data with the most
current information on gas prices, loads, retirements, and additions. Note that if load becomes too small
or transmission constraints are reached, wind generation will back down or curtail.
Existing electric transmission from Canada: We used the Market Analytics default assumptions for the
existing lines.
Gas LDC demand data: Base case gas demand, before demand-side measures, was modeled using the
Massachusetts LDCs gas demand forecasts and the most up-to-date information available regarding
capacity exempt customers.
53
Planning year load includes company use, commercial and industrial customers, and
heating and non-heating load of residential customers. It also accounts for energy
efficiency adjustments, unbilled sales and losses, and adjustments for capacity exempt
customers. Capacity exempt adjustments represent commercial and industrial capacity
exempt and capacity exempt unaccounted for gas.
Electricity Market Module. AEO 2014. Available at http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/electricity.pdf
77
Design year planning load was calculated using the design year daily effective degree
days for each of five LDCs. All of the items included in planning year load calculations are
included in the design year. NGrid provided updated planning year data that replaced
their most recent filing.
The reconstituted design year reflects the load projected by the LDCs in the design year
but is then adjusted for all the energy efficiency expected by the LDCs forecast
(including capacity exempt) to generate an expected load prior to energy efficiency.
LDCs five-year design day forecasts were applied to the January of the split year and
54
remain unadjusted from their most recent filing as provided to DOER. For those years
not provided by the companies, the average annual load growth rate for the given
forecasted years was used to extrapolate the design day and annual forecasts out
through 2019. From 2020 through 2030 design day and annual gas demand was
projected at a 0.5-percent annual growth rate per EIA projections using the AEO 2013
Demand Technology Case average annual natural gas consumption growth rate for New
England.
Design day planning load was calculated by using the design day effective degree days
level.55 Design day planning load includes the same items as design year and for three of
the LDCs (Berkshires, NStar, and Liberty) the most recent LDC filing was used. Columbia
and NGrids design day loads were replaced with updated values provided through the
stakeholder process. The design day value includes the LDCs expected energy efficiency
and is not reconstituted.
Munis natural gas demand data: Demand for munis is modeled as a proxy based on the natural gas
56
capacity under contract to these utilities in 2015. This proxy demand is then forecasted to increase in
each year using the same average growth rate as used by LDCs. Munis natural gas demand is roughly 2
percent of LDC natural gas demand in each year.
Gas capacity data: We model existing natural gas capacity from:
54
55
56
Existing pipelines: Algonquin Gas Transmission Company (AGT), Maritimes/Northeast

Pipeline Company (M&NP); Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (TGP)
Planned pipeline capacity: Algonquin Incremental Market (AIM) pipeline capacity, which
is an expansion of the AGT line, expected to be complete in 2017
LDCs LNG storage and vaporization: National Grid, Columbia, NSTAR, Liberty, Fitchburg
Gas and Electric, Berkshire Gas, Holyoke, Middleboro
We used the latest Department of Public Utilities filings for all LDCs except NGrid and Columbia, which provided DOER with
updated design day forecasts.
Berkshire Gas Company. 2014. Long Range Forecast and Supply Plan. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Public
Utilities.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline informational postings, http://pipeline2.kindermorgan.com/Capacity/OpAvailPoint.aspx?code=TGP
78
Full GDF Suez LNG vaporization at Everett, MA with an allocation for Mystic electric
generation plant
Existing propane: NGrid; Columbia; Fitchburg Gas and Electric; and Berkshire Gas
Where LDC demand forecasts do not extend to 2019 we extrapolated each LDCs demand based on its
trend during the forecast period. LDC demand growth after 2019 is projected to be 0.5 percent per year,
based on the assumptions developed for the CECP. Muni and capacity exempt demand growth is
assumed to keep pace with LDC demand.
Winter peak: In the electric sector, in addition to our annual modeling, we reran January for each year in
the analysis for the purpose of modeling the gas requirements in the winter peak hour. We modeled
each January as a period of cold weatherdefined as the CELT 2014 5-percent confidence interval or
high caseassuming that all modeled regions (New England, New York, Quebec, and the Maritimes) all
experience a relative cold snap. Winter peak energy efficiency and time-varying rate savings were also
assumed. Peak hour data were as then extracted as the highest peak 6pm hour among days from
January 13 through 31in this way assuring that the peak hour falls in a period of at least 12 contiguous
cold snap days.
In the gas sector, gas requirements were represented as each LDCs demand day requirements
(including natural gas consumers commonly referred to as capacity-exempt customers), adjusted to an
hourly requirement based on an assumption that 5.6 percent of daily peak demand falls during the peak
57
hour. We evaluated the effects of an extended cold snap by modeling design day load over a 12-day
period, then applying the impacts extended use of stored natural gas natural storage on the available
storage capacity. Our research determined that existing LNG storage facilities have sufficient capacity for
13 days using existing vaporizers. Propane storage is not available in this model as a balancing measure;
existing propane storage facilities are sufficient for a 3-day cold snap. Gas capacity was adjusted to an
hourly requirement assuming that 1/24 of daily capacity is available during the peak hour.
Constraint criteria: The balance criteria of gas demand no greater than 95-percent of gas capacity
reflects the level of pipeline utilization at which operational flow orders are typically declared and
shippers are held to strict tolerances on their takes from the pipeline. The impact of gas constraint on
natural gas prices is thought to begin when gas demand rises above 80-percent of gas capacity. Gas
prices associated with out-of-balance conditions are assumed in 2015 through 2019 in our model.
Balancing measures: We determined the least-cost set of measures that would eliminate constraints
and balancing the Massachusetts gas sector. Balancing measures are shown in Table 25 and Table 26.
57
Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative Draft Gas-Electric Interface Study Target 2 Report, p.64-65
79
Table 25. Balancing measures available in base case

Total winter
Increment
peak hour
availability
2015 Balancing Measures
Total annual
availability
Winter peak
hour
availability
Hours of
Annual
availability at
availability
winter peak
Number of
Annual cost
Per MMBtu
minimum
cost
increments
per year
available
MMBtu
MMBtu
MMBtu
MMBtu
hours
$/MMBtu
Annual
Pipeline (long- and short-haul)
Minimum
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Winter Reliability Program
Minimum
29,434
29,434
150
150
$450
$3.00
29,434
Demand Response
Minimum
190
5,040
0.76
20
24
$1,326
$66
250
Pumped Storage
Minimum
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Battery Storage
Minimum
289
52,560
289
52,560
182
$20,051,425
$381
undetermined

Minimum
4,167
36,500,000
n/a
$51,100,000
$1.40
Minimum
undetermined undetermined
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Demand Response
Minimum
190
5,040
0.76
20
24
$1,326
$66
250
Pumped Storage
Minimum
4,043
367,920
2,022
183,960
182
$94,466,330
$257
Battery Storage
Minimum
1,444
52,560
289
10,512
182
$19,153,973
$364
undetermined

Minimum
4,167
36,500,000
n/a
$51,100,000
$1.40
Minimum
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Demand Response
Minimum
190
5,040
0.76
20
24
$1,326
$66
250
Pumped Storage
Minimum
4,043
367,920
2,022
183,960
182
$94,466,330
$257
Battery Storage
Minimum
8,664
52,560
289
1,752
182
$15,509,561
$295
30
Annual
availability at
availability
winter peak
Table 26. Balancing measures available in low demand case

Total winter
Increment
peak hour
availability
Total annual
availability
Winter peak
hour
availability
Hours of
Number of
Annual cost
Per MMBtu
minimum
cost
increments
per year
available
MMBtu
MMBtu
MMBtu
MMBtu
hours
$/MMBtu
Annual
Minimum
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Minimum
29,434
29,434
150
150
$450
$3.00
29,434
Demand Response
Minimum
760
20,160
0.76
20
24
$1,326
$66
1000
Pumped Storage
Minimum
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Battery Storage
Minimum
289
52,560
289
52,560
182
$20,051,425
$381
undetermined

Minimum
4,167
36,500,000
n/a
$51,100,000
$1.40
Minimum
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Demand Response
Minimum
760
20,160
0.76
20
24
$1,326
$66
1000
Pumped Storage
Minimum
4,043
367,920
2,022
183,960
182
$94,466,330
$257
Battery Storage
Minimum
1,444
52,560
289
10,512
182
$19,153,973
$364
undetermined

Minimum
4,167
36,500,000
n/a
$51,100,000
$1.40
Minimum
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Demand Response
Minimum
760
20,160
0.76
20
24
$1,326
$66
1000
Pumped Storage
Minimum
4,043
367,920
2,022
183,960
182
$94,466,330
$257
Battery Storage
Minimum
8,664
52,560
289
1,752
182
$15,509,561
$295
30
80
58
59
60
Pipeline capacity (long- and short-haul58), incremental to existing and planned natural
gas pipeline capacity in both the base and low demand cases, is assumed to be available
in 100,000 MMBtu/day increments with a minimum increment of 100,000 MMBtu and a
maximum increment of 500,000 MMBtu/day beginning in 2019. There are no economies
of scale for differences in the size of these increments. The existing and planned pipeline
capacity (included in modeling, not as a balancing measure) for 2020 includes the
342,000 MMBtu/day of capacity associated with the AIM project which is scheduled to
be online by November 1, 2016. The cost assumptions associated with the incremental
pipeline expansions are derived from the cost data submitted by Algonquin in its filing
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.59
ISO-NE Winter Reliability program is an inventory buy-back program for oil, LNG and a
very small portion of demand response that will be in effect for the next four winters:
2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18. In the both the base case and low demand
case, the Winter Reliability program is not available as a balancing measure after 2018.
In years it is available, Winter Reliability is always applied as a balancing measure
directly after demand response, in order to simulate how ISO-NE develops its forecast
for required inventory for the program. This program is then allowed to function as a
balancer for up to 29,434 MMBtu per peak hour in 2015 (in both the base case and low
demand case).
Demand response in the electric sector is available for two 4-hour periods in each of
three months: December, January and February. For Massachusetts, 25 MW of demand
response is estimated to be available in the base case during each of these periods at a
monthly cost of $1/kW-month, and an hourly cost of $500/MW. 100 MW is estimated to
be available in the low demand case at the same cost per MW.
Pumped storage, incremental to existing pumped hydro installations in both the base
and low demand cases, is assumed to be available as follows: 0 MW by 2015, 560 MW
from 2016 to 2020, and an additional 560 MW from 2021 to 2030 with an annual
capacity factor of 15 percent. Annual levelized costs are constant over the study period
at $257/MWh. These assumptions are based on a DOE and Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI) 2013 Electricity Storage Handbook. 60 The minimum facility size is
assumption to 280 MW and we are not aware of evidence of economies of scale for
larger installations. This balancing measure is more expensive than incremental pipeline
and, therefore, is not used in any scenario or year.
Battery storage is assumed to be available as follows in both the base and low demand
cases: 40 MW by 2015, an additional 200 MW from 2016 to 2020, and an additional
1200 MW from 2021 to 2030 with an annual capacity factor of 15 percent. Annual
levelized costs fall from $381/MWh in 2015 to $295/MWh in 2030. These assumptions
are based on DOE/EPRIs 2013 Electricity Storage Handbook. The minimum facility size is
Long haul pipeline capacity transports gas from the Gulf Coast and Western Canada, Short haul capacity transports gas from
storage fields and Marcellus Shale regions
Algonquin Gas Transmission, AIM expansion, FERC CP-14-96.
Table B-12. http://www.sandia.gov/ess/publications/SAND2013-5131.pdf
81
assumption to 40 MW and we are not aware of evidence of economies of scale for

larger installations. This balancing measure is more expensive than incremental pipeline
and, therefore, is not used in any scenario or year.
In addition, we examined the utility of LNG imports in balancing scenarios and found
that, while this capacity could be purchased for approximately $9.85 per MMBtu (the
basis to European winter purchases of LNG) its reliability suffers from the problem of a
time lag between identifying the need for the resources (and the price conditions to
make it profitable) and the ability of ships to make delivery at the Massachusetts port.
82
APPENDIX C: LOW ENERGY DEMAND CASE ASSUMPTIONS

Overview: Low energy demand case energy is modeled as the base case with the addition of the
maximum feasible amount of additional alternative resources.
Gas prices: As in base case.
Canadian transmission: As in base case.
Carbon prices: As in base case.
Greenhouse gas emissions: As in base case.
GWSA compliance: As in base case.
Energy efficiency: For Massachusetts electric efficiency: annual savings rise to 2.9 percent of program
administrators transmission-and-distribution-adjusted load by 2020; the annual share of savings
remains constant through 2030. For Massachusetts gas efficiency: annual savings rise to 1.9 percent of
annual retail sales by 2020; the annual share of savings remains constant through 2030. Energy
efficiency savings at winter peak as in base case. Costs are reported in Appendix A.
Time varying rates: As in base case.
Advanced Building Codes: As in base case.
Renewable thermal technologies: As in base case.
Winter Reliability program: As in base case.
Distributed generation: Incremental to distributed generation in the base case, the alternative
resources in Table 27 were added.
83
Table 27. Alternative resources added to low demand case at reference natural gas price
2015
Anaerobic Digestion
Landfill Gas
Converted Hydro
Small CHP
Annual Savings
Potential (billion Btu)
20
17
14
184
2020
Res. Gas EE
Appliance Standards
CI Gas EE
LI Gas EE
Res. Electric EE
CI Electric EE
Anaerobic Digestion
Landfill Gas
Large CHP
Converted Hydro
LI Electric EE
Small CHP
Biomass Power C1
Annual Savings
Potential (trillion Btu)
4
9
4
1
1
5
1
1
1
2
0.1
1
1
2030
Res. Gas EE
Appliance Standards
CI Gas EE
LI Gas EE
Res. Electric EE
CI Electric EE
Anaerobic Digestion
Large CHP
Landfill Gas
Converted Hydro
Small CHP
LI Electric EE
Biomass Power C1
Utility-Scale PV
Large Wind C5
Commercial PV
Large Wind C4
Biomass Power C2
Residential PV
Wind (<100 kW)
Annual Savings
Potential (trillion Btu)
5
25
10
2
3
15
0.4
2
0.3
2
2
0.3
1
2
15
11
24
2
2
6
Retirements: As in base case.

Additions: As in base case plus alternative resources below the economic threshold in the feasibility
analysis.
Capital costs: As in base case.
Benefit of eliminating constraint-elevated prices: As in base case.
Electric sales data: As in base case.
Electric capacity data: As in base case, adjusted to included alternative resources below the economic
threshold in the feasibility analysis.
Existing electric transmission from Canada: As in base case.
Gas LDC demand data: As in base case, adjusted to included alternative resources below the economic
threshold in the feasibility analysis.
Gas Muni demand data: As in base case.
Gas capacity data: As in base case.
Winter peak: As in base case.
Constraint criteria: As in base case.
Balancing measures: We determined the least-cost set of measures that would eliminate constraints
and balancing the Massachusetts gas sector. Balancing measures are described above in Appendix B.
84
APPENDIX D: NATURAL GAS PRICE SENSITIVITY ASSUMPTIONS

Natural gas price projections are Henry Hub prices developed from three sources: the October 2014
Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO) and the April 2014 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) both issued by the
DOE/ EIA; and the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) futures gas prices as of October 14, 2014.
In all three price sensitivities the historical monthly prices from January 2012 through October 2014 are
from the STEO Figure 14. Also, in all three price sensitivities the monthly price projections from
November 2014 through December 2015 are from the October 14, 2014 NYMEX close. The three price
sensitivities vary beginning in January 2016. For the reference gas price, the monthly NYMXEX prices are
escalated annually in proportion to the annual percentage changes in the Henry Hub prices from the
2014 AEO Reference Case (Tab 13, line 44). For the high gas price, the monthly NYMEX prices are
escalated in proportion to the annual percentage changes in the Henry Hub prices from the 2014 AEO
Low Oil and Gas Resource Case (Total Energy Supply, Disposition, and Price Summary, Low Oil and Gas
Resource Case Table, line 57). For the low gas price, the Henry Hub prices from the 2014 AEO High Oil
and Gas Resource Case (Total Energy Supply, Disposition, and Price Summary, High Oil and Gas Resource
Table, line 57) were adjusted in 2019 and 2020 to align better with the prices from the reference price
forecast. Without this adjustment, the low price case was higher than the reference case in those two
years. The monthly NYMEX prices are then escalated in proportion to the annual percentage changes in
the adjusted Henry Hub price trajectory from the 2014 AEO High Oil and Gas Resource Case (Total
Energy Supply, Disposition, and Price Summary, High Oil and Gas Resource Table, line 57).
The Low and High Oil and Gas Resource Cases from the 2014 AEO were chosen to represent a range in
future gas supplies available from shale reserves. DOE/EIA explicitly recognizes this uncertainty and
developed these alternate resource cases to address it.
In 2015 through 2019, we use a winter basis estimate as the November to March difference between
Henry Hub and Algonquin City Gate daily prices in 2013/2014. For the summer months in 2015 through
2019, and for all months in the remaining years we assume one constant basis differential for every day,
calculated as the average difference between Henry Hub and Algonquin City Gate daily prices in the
April through October of 2014. Figure 19 displays the daily reference gas price adjusted for the basis
differential for 2015 and 2030.
85
Figure 19. Daily reference gas price adjusted for basis differential, 2015 and 2030
86
APPENDIX E: CANADIAN TRANSMISSION SENSITIVITY ASSUMPTIONS

This appendix provides information on Hydro Quebec (HQ) export strategies, data on existing power
flows from Canada into New England, and recommendations for modeling assumptions. Table 28
summarizes modeling assumptions related to incremental transmission from Canada.
Table 28. Incremental Canadian transmission assumptions
Imports into New England
Generic HVDC 1
Generic HVDC 2
Model Cases
Canadian transmission only
Nominal/Max
1200
1200
Summer Max
1200
1200
Winter Design Day Peak

Hour (6 PM)
1200
1200
Winter Peak Day CF
0.75
0.75
Winter Peak Hour CF
0.71
0.71
Year Available
2018
2022
Generic baseloaded import
Generic intermediate-loaded
import
Historic Ph II pattern
Historic Ph II pattern
0.67
0.50
$1.5 billion
$2.2 billion
Comments/Source
Flow Patterns
Ave Ann CF
Cost of Line ($2013)
Documentation of HQ Export Intentions

Synapse relied in part upon Hydro Quebecs (HQ) 2009-2013 Strategic Energy Plan, and HQs 2012
Annual Report to document Major Sources of Incremental Hydroelectric Energy in our memo to the
MA DOER, November 1, 201361. Since that time, HQ has released a new annual report, but they have
not yet posted any new Strategic Plan documents. HQs 2013 Annual Report notes the following:
Hydro-Qubec Production is continuing talks regarding participation in projects to build
transmission lines between Qubec and certain states in the U.S. Northeast. These
interconnections would enable us to increase our exports to those markets. (p. 12)
61
Synapse Energy Economics, Incremental Benefits and Costs of Large-Scale Hydroelectric Energy Imports, Prepared for the
Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources, November 1, 2013. See, e.g., pages 8-9.
87
The information in the Annual Report (2013) does not clarify exactly how much capacity and/or annual
energy HQ might be capable of providing to New England, for any given year or for any given price point.
The 2009-2013 Strategic Plan clearly indicates that HQ plan to Step Up Exports but with Ontario, New
York, New Brunswick, and New England all having access to HQ for energy, its not certain what that
means for New England. From the Strategic Plan:
Objective 2: Step up exports.
As a result of recent and ongoing hydroelectric development projects, Hydro-Quebec

Production expects to have the generating capacity needed to ensure export growth. By
2013, we will have nearly 24 TWh at our disposal. This margin of flexibility will enable us
to increase the volume of our exports. (p. 25)
And
Strategy 2 Step up exports to New England and New York.
Hydro-Quebec Production is currently negotiating agreements to supply electricity, via

this transmission line [Northern Pass], to these two U.S. distributors and other New
England distributors, starting in the middle of the next decade.
Other discussions are under way with State of New York authorities, including the New
York Power Authority (NYPA) and the New York Independent System Operator (NYISO),
with a view to increasing electricity sales to that market. The State of New York is
considering a number of means, including imports of Qubec hydropower, to reach its
renewable energy goals and GHG emission reduction targets. (p. 27)
And
We also plan to upgrade the New York interconnection (Chateauguay substation). With
import and export capability, this interconnection plays a major role in energy
interchanges between Quebec and the United States. We will coordinate the work with
the U.S. operators to reduce impacts on service. We are considering other projects to
ensure long-term operability and are keeping up our efforts to maintain or increase the
exploitable capacity of all our interconnection facilities. We will increase our
participation on technical committees with the operators of neighboring power grids
and continue to make representations on joint operating rules and reliability standards
for interconnected transmission systems. (p. 42)
HQ is on track to complete up to 3,000 MW of new wind energy integration (since ~2008) by 2015.62 HQ
is also continuing its development of hydroelectric resources.63 HQ continues with an energy efficiency
62
63
See e.g. http://www.hydroquebec.com/publications/en/others/pdf/depliant_eolienne_distribution.pdf.

See Strategic Plan 2009-2013, Objective 1: Increase hydroelectric generating capacity, page 19.
88
program64. HQ is in the process of continuing to reinforce and upgrade its transmission network in
southern Quebec, and other areas of the Province. For example, transmission reinforcement around
Montreal is anticipated over the next five years:
BOUT-DE-LLE 735-KV SECTION
Hydro-Qubec Transnergie (Transnergie) is adding a new 735-kV section at Bout-delle substation (located at east end of Montral Island). This was originally a 315/120-kV
station. The Boucherville Duvernay line (line 7009), which passes by Bout-de-lle, will
be looped into the new station. A new -300/+300-Mvar SVC will be integrated into the
735-kV section in 2013.
The project also includes the addition of two 735/315-kV 1,650-MVA transformers in
2014. This new 735-kV source will allow redistribution of load around the Greater
Montral area and absorb load growth in eastern Montral. This project will enable
future major modifications to the Montral area regional subsystem. Many of the
present 120-kV distribution stations will be rebuilt into 315-kV stations and the
Montral regional network will be converted to 315-kV. The addition of a second 300/+300-Mvar SVC at Bout-de-lle in 2014 is also projected. 65
Based on publicly available HQ information, it appears that there are no particular institutional
impediments to increasing export levels to New England over the next decade. This is because 1) HQ
continues to state that it plans to step up exports, and 2) its investment in hydro and wind generation,
demand side resources, and transmission reinforcement indicates ongoing activity that will allow for
increased exports; and 3) it acknowledges activity to allow for exports associated with specific
transmission projects to New England and New York.66
Existing Canadian Interconnections: Size, Flows, Capacity Factors, and

Recommendations for Modeling
The figure below shows how ISO NE represents transfers to New England from importing points.
64
65
66
See Strategic Plan 2009-2013, Objective 2: Step up energy efficiency efforts, page 50.
NERC 2013 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, December 2013. NPCC-Quebec section. Page 122. See also the full section,
pages 117-122. See also 2013 Annual Report, e.g., pages 15-19.
Strategic Plan, p27, p42. Website, http://www.hydroquebec.com/hertel-new-york/en/project/. 2013 Annual Report, page
12.
89
Figure 20. ISO NE representation for imports
Source: ISO NE
Table 29 shows hourly utilization/capacity factors for the HQ Phase 2 path for 19 of the highest load
days during the 2013-2014 winter season. These 19 days include the 9 days that contain the top 24
hours of winter season load, and generally reflect the days that could represent cold snap periods. While
on a few of these very-high-load days, the peak load hours (hour ending 18-19, or the 6PM to 7PM time
frame) see a utilization of 99 percent or greater, on average the utilization for these 2 critical hours is
83.9-85.5 percent.
90
Table 29. Summary of hourly capacity factor / utilization of Phase 2 during high load days in the Winter of 2013-2014
Capacity Factor / Hourly Utilization, Phase 2 Line - 19 High Load Days During December - February, 2013-2014
Note: 100% CF on a 1400 MW basis is equal to 70% CF on a 2000 MW basis.
Average of
CF @ 1400 Column Labels
Row Labels
12/17/2013 1/2/2014 1/3/2014 1/7/2014 1/8/2014 1/9/2014 1/21/2014 1/22/2014 1/23/2014 1/24/2014 1/25/2014 1/26/2014 1/27/2014 1/28/2014 1/29/2014 2/10/2014 2/11/2014 2/12/2014 2/13/2014 Grand Total
1
99.7%
98.0%
78.9%
99.9%
99.5%
92.6%
100.0%
99.7%
99.7%
99.4%
100.0%
88.9%
89.1%
96.1%
100.0%
99.9%
89.1%
100.0%
89.0%
95.8%
2
99.7%
100.0%
78.4%
99.9%
99.5%
92.6%
100.0%
99.7%
98.2%
99.9%
100.0%
88.9%
89.0%
96.2%
100.1%
99.9%
89.1%
100.0%
89.1%
95.8%
3
99.7%
100.0%
78.3%
99.9%
93.4%
92.6%
92.5%
99.7%
99.7%
99.9%
100.0%
89.0%
89.0%
96.2%
100.0%
100.0%
89.1%
100.0%
89.1%
95.2%
4
99.7%
99.9%
78.4%
99.9%
89.9%
92.6%
78.0%
99.7%
99.7%
99.9%
100.0%
89.1%
92.6%
96.2%
100.0%
100.0%
89.1%
100.1%
89.1%
94.4%
5
98.3%
99.9%
81.9%
99.9%
82.0%
92.6%
46.4%
97.1%
99.7%
99.9%
100.0%
89.1%
92.6%
96.1%
100.1%
100.0%
89.1%
100.0%
89.0%
92.3%
6
99.1%
99.9%
68.9%
99.9%
81.9%
92.7%
46.4%
99.0%
99.7%
98.1%
93.1%
89.1%
92.6%
96.2%
100.0%
99.9%
89.1%
100.0%
89.1%
91.3%
7
69.1%
96.3%
81.3%
99.9%
78.4%
92.6%
78.0%
68.4%
97.2%
82.5%
88.9%
89.1%
97.0%
96.1%
100.0%
100.0%
89.1%
98.3%
89.1%
89.0%
8
89.3%
98.5%
79.1% 100.0%
81.9%
92.6%
91.9%
55.1%
97.2%
81.8%
89.0%
89.1%
99.9%
98.6%
100.0%
99.9%
89.1%
59.1%
92.5%
88.7%
9
99.5%
94.9%
84.4%
99.9%
94.8%
92.6%
98.9%
65.6%
97.2%
80.5%
89.0%
89.1%
99.9%
87.1%
100.0%
99.9%
99.7%
77.9%
92.6%
91.8%
10
94.7%
94.9%
83.8% 100.0%
95.3%
92.7%
99.0%
79.5%
97.2%
99.6%
89.0%
89.0%
94.9%
99.5%
100.1%
90.8%
96.8%
92.3%
92.5%
93.8%
11
92.6%
94.9%
52.3%
98.6%
92.6%
92.6%
99.0%
87.1%
86.1%
100.1%
89.0%
89.1%
95.9%
100.0%
100.0%
89.1%
90.7%
92.9%
90.5%
91.2%
12
92.6%
94.3%
93.1%
92.2%
92.7%
92.6%
99.1%
83.4%
85.7%
100.0%
89.1%
89.1%
96.4%
100.0%
100.1%
89.1%
89.1%
92.9%
89.8%
92.7%
13
99.6%
70.8%
99.7%
92.3%
92.6%
92.6%
99.1%
89.1%
96.8%
100.0%
88.9%
89.1%
90.1%
100.1%
100.2%
89.1%
89.1%
99.9%
89.8%
93.1%
14
99.6%
94.2%
96.2%
92.3%
92.7%
92.6%
99.1%
99.1%
97.2%
100.0%
89.0%
89.1%
89.5%
100.0%
100.2%
89.1%
89.1%
90.6%
89.8%
94.2%
15
99.6%
92.9%
92.9%
92.3%
92.6%
92.6%
99.1%
99.7%
97.2%
100.0%
88.9%
89.1%
83.1%
100.0%
100.2%
89.1%
89.1%
89.7%
89.8%
93.6%
16
99.6%
51.9%
89.4%
92.3%
92.6%
92.6%
98.5%
99.7%
96.8%
100.1%
88.9%
89.1%
89.6%
100.0%
100.1%
89.1%
89.1%
89.7%
86.9%
91.4%
17
99.5%
50.3%
89.3%
92.3%
92.6%
90.7%
67.5%
89.8%
71.6%
99.6%
88.9%
88.6%
79.9%
92.9%
100.1%
89.1%
89.1%
89.8%
86.9%
86.8%
18
99.6%
47.0%
85.7%
92.3%
85.5%
92.6%
57.8%
73.2%
46.5%
81.9%
88.9%
69.7%
83.0%
92.8%
100.1%
89.1%
89.1%
89.6%
83.6%
81.5%
19
99.5%
55.8%
92.6%
99.4%
88.9%
92.6%
71.5%
53.4%
38.9%
86.6%
88.9%
88.6%
83.1%
99.9%
100.0%
89.1%
89.1%
92.8%
83.5%
83.9%
20
99.5%
57.6%
90.6%
99.5%
92.6%
92.6%
56.6%
66.8%
40.1%
99.6%
88.9%
89.1%
89.6%
100.0%
100.0%
89.1%
89.1%
92.9%
89.6%
85.5%
21
99.5%
74.3%
87.4%
92.8%
92.7%
92.6%
65.1%
81.3%
43.7%
100.0%
88.9%
89.1%
89.8%
100.1%
100.0%
89.1%
91.9%
94.4%
89.6%
87.5%
22
99.4%
92.3%
92.6%
99.4%
92.6%
92.6%
77.7%
99.5%
43.8%
100.0%
88.9%
89.0%
96.6%
100.0%
100.0%
89.1%
84.9%
92.9%
89.6%
90.6%
23
99.4%
92.7%
99.6%
99.5%
92.6%
92.5%
87.9%
90.8%
55.3%
100.0%
88.9%
89.1%
92.9%
100.1%
92.3%
89.1%
99.4%
90.6%
89.6%
91.7%
24
99.4%
92.7%
99.8%
96.5%
92.7%
92.5%
96.3%
99.6%
85.0%
100.1%
88.9%
89.1%
92.8%
100.0%
89.1%
89.1%
100.1%
89.1%
89.7%
93.8%
Grand Total
97.0%
85.2%
85.6%
97.1%
90.9%
92.5%
83.6%
86.5%
82.1%
96.2%
91.4%
88.2%
91.2%
97.7%
99.3%
93.3%
90.8%
92.3%
89.2%
91.1%
91
Table 30. Summary of hourly capacity factor / utilization of New Brunswick Tie during high load days in the Winter of 2013-2014
NB Capacity Factor
800
Hour End 12/17/2013 1/2/2014 1/3/2014 1/7/2014 1/8/2014 1/9/2014 1/21/2014 1/22/2014 1/23/2014 1/24/2014 1/25/2014 1/26/2014 1/27/2014 1/28/2014 1/29/2014 2/10/2014 2/11/2014 2/12/2014 2/13/2014 Ave all Days
1
80%
56%
19%
85%
73%
97%
98%
91%
67%
73%
83%
96%
97%
97%
96%
81%
100%
91%
80%
82%
2
79%
51%
25%
78%
77%
97%
97%
83%
64%
63%
82%
98%
89%
97%
98%
98%
87%
87%
76%
80%
3
81%
45%
33%
74%
78%
96%
96%
78%
71%
66%
75%
97%
88%
97%
97%
96%
83%
89%
91%
81%
4
82%
36%
31%
79%
73%
94%
82%
68%
69%
67%
72%
97%
84%
97%
97%
97%
85%
87%
92%
79%
5
81%
23%
23%
71%
45%
95%
75%
60%
61%
75%
68%
97%
82%
97%
97%
93%
95%
87%
84%
74%
6
20%
10%
8%
86%
44%
75%
58%
63%
58%
67%
69%
96%
85%
80%
91%
84%
97%
90%
74%
66%
7
7%
7%
-11%
87%
48%
51%
68%
45%
39%
52%
68%
96%
56%
64%
55%
71%
80%
49%
79%
53%
8
-20%
1%
-21%
90%
82%
40%
79%
44%
49%
33%
69%
97%
58%
69%
47%
74%
77%
41%
81%
52%
9
14%
4%
-11%
87%
81%
33%
76%
40%
50%
42%
71%
97%
73%
90%
46%
85%
81%
57%
81%
58%
10
36%
-3%
18%
96%
95%
36%
97%
79%
28%
80%
79%
84%
94%
97%
85%
95%
98%
94%
97%
73%
11
51%
-12%
-5%
97%
95%
33%
98%
48%
27%
77%
81%
85%
97%
99%
89%
97%
98%
97%
98%
71%
12
57%
-23%
-22%
89%
93%
34%
98%
80%
26%
79%
89%
85%
95%
98%
88%
99%
97%
99%
83%
71%
13
46%
-23%
-11%
95%
93%
51%
100%
80%
55%
85%
93%
96%
98%
100%
88%
99%
99%
92%
99%
75%
14
36%
-9%
-15%
97%
93%
43%
99%
79%
61%
80%
95%
97%
96%
99%
92%
100%
99%
95%
99%
75%
15
45%
14%
-12%
96%
91%
42%
97%
76%
58%
79%
95%
96%
96%
98%
89%
96%
99%
94%
98%
76%
16
24%
11%
-11%
92%
92%
40%
95%
75%
55%
56%
97%
97%
96%
97%
84%
97%
97%
94%
97%
73%
17
11%
16%
10%
93%
93%
46%
62%
56%
46%
34%
96%
86%
95%
75%
69%
95%
70%
90%
80%
64%
18
3%
24%
22%
77%
94%
52%
60%
60%
44%
38%
98%
69%
84%
78%
82%
96%
74%
97%
100%
66%
19
8%
-16%
10%
78%
93%
61%
66%
58%
48%
68%
98%
70%
84%
88%
91%
92%
71%
95%
92%
66%
20
19%
-21%
24%
83%
92%
61%
69%
57%
35%
76%
97%
82%
96%
92%
83%
94%
71%
99%
77%
68%
21
32%
-20%
41%
92%
79%
57%
71%
55%
36%
77%
98%
89%
95%
78%
84%
97%
71%
98%
79%
69%
22
51%
-20%
45%
88%
86%
54%
76%
59%
47%
86%
98%
96%
98%
97%
85%
99%
75%
86%
99%
74%
23
60%
-2%
38%
97%
87%
55%
75%
94%
76%
88%
98%
85%
97%
98%
84%
99%
97%
98%
99%
80%
24
29%
39%
49%
83%
91%
52%
84%
85%
58%
80%
97%
83%
91%
80%
85%
100%
85%
56%
99%
75%
Ave all hrs
39%
8%
11%
87%
82%
58%
82%
67%
51%
68%
86%
90%
88%
90%
83%
93%
87%
86%
89%
71%
92
Table 31. Summary of hourly capacity factor / utilization of Highgate Tie during high load days in the Winter of 2013-2014
Highgate
225
CF
hr 12/17/2013 1/2/2014 1/3/2014 1/7/2014 1/8/2014 1/9/2014 1/21/2014 1/22/2014 1/23/2014 1/24/2014 1/25/2014 1/26/2014 1/27/2014 1/28/2014 1/29/2014 2/10/2014 2/11/2014 2/12/2014 2/13/2014 Grand Total
1
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
95.6%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.3%
98.2%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
96.5%
2
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
98.2%
97.8%
97.3%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
98.2%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
96.6%
3
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
98.2%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
96.7%
4
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
98.2%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
96.7%
5
97.3%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
95.6%
96.9%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.3%
98.2%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
96.4%
6
97.3%
97.8%
88.9%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
85.3%
10.7%
94.7%
95.1%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
96.0%
98.2%
93.3%
93.3%
98.2%
90.5%
7
86.7%
97.8%
95.6%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
11.1%
17.3%
10.7%
4.0%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
96.9%
97.3%
93.3%
93.3%
98.2%
77.5%
8
86.7%
97.8%
3.6%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
11.1%
81.3%
8.9%
0.0%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
96.9%
93.3%
93.3%
97.3%
75.7%
9
97.3%
97.8%
8.9%
93.3%
97.8%
93.3%
96.0%
11.1%
8.9%
0.0%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
96.4%
96.9%
77.8%
10
97.8%
97.8%
10.7%
93.3%
97.8%
93.3%
97.3%
8.9%
8.9%
0.0%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
97.3%
98.2%
78.0%
11
97.8%
97.8%
84.9%
93.3%
97.8%
93.3%
97.8%
8.9%
8.9%
2.2%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
94.2%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
81.6%
12
97.8%
97.3%
97.3%
93.3%
97.8%
93.3%
97.8%
10.7%
66.7%
95.6%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
98.2%
97.8%
90.5%
13
98.2%
86.7%
97.8%
93.3%
97.8%
93.3%
97.8%
95.6%
95.6%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
98.2%
98.2%
96.1%
14
98.2%
97.3%
97.8%
93.3%
97.8%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
94.7%
97.3%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
98.2%
98.2%
96.7%
15
98.2%
97.3%
97.8%
93.3%
97.8%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
93.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
98.2%
98.2%
96.7%
16
98.2%
86.7%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
4.9%
97.3%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
98.2%
97.8%
91.2%
17
98.2%
86.2%
95.6%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
96.4%
96.0%
9.8%
93.8%
97.8%
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
98.2%
97.8%
90.9%
18
98.2%
86.2%
2.2%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
4.0%
11.1%
8.4%
2.7%
97.8%
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
97.3%
97.8%
71.8%
19
98.2%
86.2%
0.9%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
0.0%
8.9%
0.0%
2.2%
97.8%
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
98.2%
97.8%
71.0%
20
98.2%
86.2%
11.1%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
1.3%
8.9%
0.0%
95.6%
97.8%
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
98.2%
97.8%
76.5%
21
98.2%
97.3%
96.0%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
94.2%
8.9%
0.0%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.3%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
86.5%
22
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
10.7%
0.0%
97.3%
97.8%
97.8%
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
86.9%
23
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
95.6%
0.0%
96.9%
97.8%
97.8%
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
91.3%
24
98.2%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
10.7%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
97.8%
93.3%
93.3%
97.8%
97.8%
92.0%
ave all hours
97.0%
94.9%
73.7%
93.3%
94.6%
93.3%
77.7%
56.8%
42.2%
69.1%
97.8%
97.9%
97.8%
97.6%
97.6%
95.2%
93.3%
96.4%
97.8%
87.6%
93
Crucially, the CF percentage listed is based on a winter benchmark limit of 1400 MW for the HQ Phase 2
line. As seen, on these cold days, usage rarely exceeds 1,400 MW (a few intervals show usage at as high
as 100.2 percent during midday hours, but never more than 1400 MW during the critical hours). If using
a different benchmark for capacity factor, or utilization such as the maximum nominal rating of the
path, 2000 MWa capacity factor of 70 percent would represent a flow of 1,400 MW.
During other hours of the winter, flows reaching as high as 1,749 MW were seen on the HQ Phase 2
path. A number of days see many hours with flows exceeding 1,600 MW.
As shown in Table 30, the New Brunswick line should use a 67 percent capacity factor (on a base of 800
MW, or 536 MW), for the maximum flow during peak hours 6-7 PM. For peak days, a capacity
factor/utilization value of 71 percent, or 568 MW should be used. The patterns can reflect the total
column seen in Table 2 of this report.
Based on the same idea, and as seen in Table 31, the Highgate line should use a 75 percent capacity
factor (on a base of 225 MW, or 168 MW), for the maximum flow during peak hours 6-7 PM. For peak
days, a capacity factor/utilization value of 88 percent, or 198 MW should be used. The patterns can
reflect the total column seen in Table 3 of this report.
As is documented in the following tables (Table 32 through Table 41), existing patterns of energy
transfer over the HQ Phase II interconnection, Highgate, and the path from New Brunswick illustrate
that even in the absence of winter capacity contracts for the full aggregate capacity of the
interconnections, HQ imports large amounts of energy to New England during winter periods. We
surmise this is due primarily to the economics of importing Canadian energy during high-priced winter
periods.
Table 32. Recommendations for modeling existing paths
Imports into New

England
HQ Phase II (DC)
New Brunswick (AC)
Highgate (DC)
Nominal/Max
2,000/1,400
1,000/800
225/198
Winter Design Day Max
1,400/1,190
568
198
Ave Ann Capacity Factors

(from Nominal Max)
67 percent
40 percent
80 percent
Per recent history

(2013/14). See
monthly CF by
peak/off-peak
periods
Per recent history

(2013/14). See
monthly CF by
peak/off-peak
periods
Per recent history

(2013/14). See
monthly CF by
peak/off-peak
periods
Historical data
Historical data / note

increase in 2013/14
with Pt. Lepreau back
online
Historical data
Flow Patterns
Source/Comment
The following three tables show the utilization of the Phase II line based on data from 2011-present.
94
Table 33. HQ Phase II average monthly flows into New England by peak and off-peak periods (negative indicates
import to New England from Quebec)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
OffJul
peak
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Off-peak Avg
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Peak
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Peak Avg
Annual Avg
2011
2012
2013
2014
-1,270
-1,297
-799
-909
-945
-982
-1,128
-858
-436
-764
-657
-1,261
-945
-1,371
-1,377
-1,333
-1,451
-1,549
-1,495
-1,456
-1,348
-813
-1,446
-1,279
-1,459
-1,364
-1,144
-1,237
-1,164
-1,290
-1,231
-1,015
-1,164
-1,417
-1,228
-1,029
-1,406
-1,016
-1,399
-1,218
-1,399
-1,422
-1,498
-1,485
-1,270
-1,456
-1,637
-1,537
-1,260
-1,503
-1,294
-1,451
-1,435
-1,321
-1,405
-1,331
-1,416
-1,191
-1,321
-1,434
-1,264
-1,493
-961
-1,473
-1,428
-1,403
-1,345
-1,392
-1,337
-1,396
-1,470
-1,476
-1,532
-1,354
-1,543
-1,114
-1,531
-1,505
-1,428
-1,424
-1,383
-1,326
-1,304
-1,344
-1,241
-1,039
-1,000
-1,096
-1,282
-1,152
-1,198
-1,347
-1,330
-1,393
-1,488
-1,552
-1,366
-1,427
-1,508
-1,373
-1,421
-1,304
2011-2014
Avg
-1,308
-1,273
-1,220
-1,141
-1,078
-1,150
-1,226
-1,220
-898
-1,202
-1,039
-1,355
-1,175
-1,377
-1,367
-1,404
-1,474
-1,460
-1,462
-1,467
-1,483
-1,138
-1,495
-1,357
-1,446
-1,410
-1,287
Source: ISO NE SMD Interchange Data, 2011-2014. Tabulation by Synapse. Note: Peak periods are defined as weekdays, from
hour-ending 8AM to hour-ending 11PM.
Table 33 shows that average monthly peak period flows during the winter are generally more than 1,300
MW even in the absence of any firm capacity commitments by HQ. The patterns show relatively high
average utilization of the path.
95
Table 34. Maximum HQ Phase II import levels, 2011-2014 (negative indicates import to New England from
Quebec)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
OffJul
peak
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Off-peak Max
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Peak
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Peak Max
Annual Max
2011
2012
2013
2014
-1,505
-1,604
-1,554
-1,585
-1,646
-1,646
-1,641
-1,641
-1,609
-1,610
-1,629
-1,647
-1,647
-1,599
-1,589
-1,580
-1,601
-1,688
-1,657
-1,650
-1,640
-1,611
-1,670
-1,662
-1,781
-1,781
-1,781
-1,662
-1,584
-1,652
-1,746
-1,723
-1,737
-1,801
-1,745
-1,723
-1,853
-1,706
-1,631
-1,853
-1,749
-1,701
-1,717
-1,746
-1,736
-1,733
-1,842
-1,835
-1,796
-1,820
-1,789
-1,613
-1,842
-1,853
-1,696
-1,606
-1,651
-1,636
-1,719
-1,816
-1,789
-1,705
-1,689
-1,742
-2,516
-1,789
-2,516
-1,691
-1,609
-1,812
-1,638
-1,753
-1,794
-1,795
-1,700
-1,669
-1,832
-1,716
-1,748
-1,832
-2,516
-1,632
-1,647
-1,599
-1,619
-1,670
-1,575
-1,622
-1,725
-1,731
-1,731
-1,648
-1,651
-1,626
-1,753
-1,762
-1,677
-1,696
-1,738
-1,758
-1,762
-1,762
2011-2014
Max
-1,696
-1,647
-1,652
-1,746
-1,723
-1,816
-1,801
-1,745
-1,731
-1,853
-2,516
-1,789
-2,516
-1,749
-1,701
-1,812
-1,753
-1,762
-1,794
-1,842
-1,835
-1,796
-1,832
-1,789
-1,781
-1,842
-2,516
Source: ISO NE SMD Interchange Data, 2011-2014. Tabulation by Synapse
Table 34 shows that winter (December-February) period peak exports to New England have reached at
least 1,781 MW (December 2011), and often reach levels that exceed 1,600 MW. Summer peak period
maximums are greater than 1,800 MW.
96
Table 35. HQ Phase II average annual capacity factor and monthly patterns (negative indicates import to New
England from Quebec)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
OffJul
peak
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Off-peak Total
Peak
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Peak Total
Annual Total
1,800 MW Avg CF
2,000 MW Avg CF
2011-2014 2013 Capacity Factor

Total
1,800 MW 2,000 MW
2011
2012
2013
2014
-518,228
-456,555
-300,602
-349,021
-370,378
-361,193
-460,115
-322,589
-160,429
-311,590
-241,640
-494,397
-4,346,737
-484,784
-419,097
-505,669
-472,553
-381,537
-447,019
-555,599
-461,889
-411,642
-528,506
-373,903
-570,828
-5,613,026
-528,188
-468,643
-577,756
-438,207
-496,738
-573,719
-475,306
-585,235
-368,944
-553,758
-548,381
-549,972
-6,164,847
-498,561
-458,917
-548,381
-456,594
-407,095
-383,978
-412,158
-522,954
-423,821
83%
81%
91%
72%
78%
95%
75%
92%
61%
87%
91%
87%
75%
73%
82%
65%
71%
85%
68%
83%
55%
79%
82%
78%
-460,571
-440,792
-490,717
-487,473
-545,304
-526,297
-489,315
-495,895
-286,128
-485,988
-450,134
-513,656
-5,672,270
-492,501
-477,634
-527,202
-498,927
-467,396
-489,094
-576,230
-565,449
-403,348
-553,160
-455,319
-487,483
-5,993,743
-512,283
-427,786
-469,111
-517,586
-543,192
-490,282
-498,161
-543,282
-374,345
-563,540
-505,708
-502,764
-5,948,040
-495,529
-425,755
-467,890
-523,693
-546,131
-458,953
-525,005
-506,760
-483,349
-1,960,884
-1,771,967
-1,954,920
-2,027,679
-2,102,023
-1,964,626
-2,088,711
-2,111,386
-1,547,170
-1,602,688
-1,411,161
-1,503,903
-4,433,065 -22,047,118
73%
68%
66%
75%
77%
71%
71%
77%
54%
80%
73%
71%
65%
61%
60%
67%
69%
64%
64%
69%
49%
72%
66%
64%
-10,019,007 -11,606,769 -12,112,887
-8,545,524 -42,284,187
64%
57%
74%
66%
77%
69%
-2,029,761
-1,803,212
-1,932,408
-1,716,375
-1,655,748
-1,765,909
-1,903,178
-1,892,667
-1,364,836
-1,393,854
-1,163,924
-1,615,197
-4,112,459 -20,237,069
72%
65%
72%
64%
Source: ISO NE SMD Interchange Data, 2011-2014. Tabulation by Synapse.
97
Table 36. Highgate average annual flows (negative indicates import to New England from Quebec)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
OffJul
peak
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Off-peak Avg
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Peak
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Peak Avg
Annual Avg
2011
2012
2013
2014
-215
-205
-141
-151
-170
-130
-165
-122
-121
-134
-72
-145
-148
-218
-220
-217
-220
-199
-179
-212
-209
-207
-169
-209
-216
-206
-176
-187
-175
-159
-216
-129
-159
-183
-158
-126
-20
-91
-187
-150
-218
-215
-219
-218
-187
-206
-205
-209
-214
-47
-99
-219
-187
-167
-214
-213
-218
-194
-183
-180
-205
-206
-208
-176
-215
-212
-202
-219
-217
-220
-215
-188
-219
-215
-217
-218
-194
-217
-218
-213
-207
-211
-216
-206
-120
-97
-120
-96
-154
-168
-154
-196
-217
-215
-216
-177
-217
-217
-217
-212
-209
-180
2011-2014
Avg
-207
-202
-182
-170
-144
-148
-162
-160
-156
-111
-127
-182
-164
-213
-217
-218
-217
-188
-205
-212
-213
-213
-136
-174
-218
-203
-183
Source: ISO NE SMD Interchange Data, 2011-2014. Tabulation by Synapse.
98
Table 37. Highgate maximum flows (negative indicates import to New England from Quebec)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
OffJul
peak
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Off-peak Max
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Peak
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Peak Max
Annual Max
2011
2012
2013
2014
-222
-222
-222
-222
-223
-212
-219
-218
-221
-210
-218
-221
-223
-221
-222
-222
-222
-222
-220
-219
-210
-219
-219
-220
-221
-222
-223
-221
-220
-221
-221
-220
-221
-221
-221
-221
-219
-222
-221
-222
-221
-221
-222
-221
-221
-220
-221
-221
-220
-219
-226
-221
-226
-226
-221
-221
-221
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-418
-222
-418
-221
-221
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-418
-221
-222
-222
-221
-220
-218
-219
-217
-217
-222
-221
-221
-222
-222
-220
-218
-218
-218
-218
-222
-222
2011-2014
Max
-222
-222
-222
-222
-223
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-418
-222
-418
-221
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-222
-226
-222
-226
-418
99
Table 38. Highgate average annual capacity factor and monthly capacity factor patterns (negative indicates
import to New England from Quebec)
2011-2014
Total
2013 CF
225 MW
-320,707
-286,049
-288,448
-256,237
-221,728
-227,270
-252,067
-248,917
-236,924
-128,358
-142,401
-216,464
-2,825,570
101%
104%
112%
95%
87%
95%
97%
102%
106%
84%
109%
105%
91%
88%
84%
88%
78%
81%
90%
87%
85%
81%
84%
87%
-652,521
-302,942
-281,521
-303,112
-298,950
-270,272
-275,137
-302,181
-303,323
-289,204
-145,512
-181,259
-226,532
-3,179,945
-1,470,490
-1,814,940
-1,180,848
75%
92%
80%
2011
2012
2013
2014
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Off-peak Total
-87,742
-72,097
-53,091
-57,796
-66,492
-47,849
-67,278
-45,957
-44,635
-54,594
-26,615
-56,744
-680,890
-73,118
-62,974
-62,346
-82,906
-48,665
-61,063
-71,765
-59,576
-50,356
-7,428
-33,415
-76,490
-690,102
-80,335
-75,013
-88,913
-71,456
-68,698
-72,172
-76,928
-80,746
-80,053
-66,336
-82,371
-83,230
-926,251
-79,512
-75,965
-84,098
-44,079
-37,873
-46,186
-36,096
-62,638
-61,880
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Peak Total
-73,368
-70,302
-79,806
-73,806
-70,151
-63,041
-71,158
-77,046
-72,895
-56,889
-73,708
-76,177
-858,347
-76,672
-72,350
-77,239
-73,263
-68,744
-69,048
-72,042
-76,914
-68,405
-17,218
-34,762
-73,731
-780,388
-80,596
-69,524
-73,939
-75,742
-69,075
-69,976
-79,156
-76,515
-73,348
-71,405
-72,789
-76,624
-888,689
Annual Total
-845,758
-1,539,237
1,000 MW Avg CF
10%
78%
Offpeak
Peak
-528,327
-72,306
-69,345
-72,128
-76,139
-62,302
-73,072
-79,825
-72,848
-74,556
100
Table 39. New Brunswick average flows (negative indicates import to New England from New Brunswick)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
OffJul
peak
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Off-peak Avg
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Peak
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Peak Avg
Annual Avg
2011
2012
2013
2014
38
143
40
-97
-177
-220
-247
-169
-236
-119
-29
-16
-92
159
226
-22
-127
-153
-304
-270
-260
-301
-96
-4
-28
-102
-97
47
181
-37
-253
-173
-132
-127
-115
-136
-208
-204
-121
-107
113
313
-29
-295
-118
-69
-10
-18
49
-186
-126
-33
-36
-73
-164
-408
-241
-208
-320
-532
-576
-642
-581
-365
-367
-526
-412
-118
-439
-276
-173
-487
-531
-677
-673
-628
-414
-349
-479
-436
-424
-604
-667
-509
-300
-111
-191
-400
-371
-309
-382
-564
-676
-510
-311
-92
-165
-423
-422
-320
-386
-384
2011-2014
Avg
-164
-186
-193
-214
-194
-272
-333
-328
-315
-228
-202
-220
-239
-111
-139
-203
-227
-214
-265
-350
-338
-305
-236
-157
-183
-230
-235
101
Table 40. New Brunswick maximum flows (negative indicates import to New England from New Brunswick)
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
OffJul
peak
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Off-peak Max
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Peak
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Peak Max
Annual Max
2011
2012
2013
2014
-386
-404
-438
-497
-439
-632
-639
-586
-615
-326
-339
-293
-639
-314
-286
-438
-540
-484
-572
-603
-645
-761
-408
-374
-325
-761
-761
-242
-147
-832
-590
-600
-512
-600
-424
-369
-449
-438
-491
-832
-270
-81
-803
-665
-557
-461
-363
-349
-292
-419
-509
-474
-803
-832
-589
-818
-792
-433
-675
-791
-810
-810
-817
-746
-738
-806
-818
-751
-816
-797
-476
-814
-792
-804
-803
-803
-774
-802
-806
-816
-818
-808
-802
-801
-648
-581
-508
-687
-649
-757
-808
-800
-803
-797
-656
-649
-505
-676
-675
-728
-803
-808
2011-2014
Max
-808
-818
-832
-648
-675
-791
-810
-810
-817
-746
-738
-806
-832
-800
-816
-803
-665
-814
-792
-804
-803
-803
-774
-802
-806
-816
-832
102
Table 41. New Brunswick average annual capacity factor and monthly patterns (negative indicates import to
New England from New Brunswick)
2011-2014 2013/14 CF
Total
1,000 MW
2011
2012
2013
2014
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Off-peak Total
15,664
50,420
15,128
-37,268
-69,352
-81,050
-100,961
-63,441
-86,764
-48,680
-10,720
-6,266
-423,290
18,463
65,154
-14,428
-97,018
-65,020
-50,590
-49,728
-43,325
-54,570
-78,368
-74,947
-49,279
-493,656
-61,656
-143,501
-98,212
-76,630
-120,457
-212,937
-216,497
-251,677
-222,986
-137,250
-140,848
-206,310
-1,888,961
-227,137
-234,812
-207,516
-110,556
-43,701
-73,395
-150,221
-151,371
-113,734
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Peak Total
53,399
72,160
-8,237
-42,532
-53,943
-107,011
-90,848
-95,778
-106,069
-32,221
-1,465
-9,923
-422,468
39,628
105,044
-10,201
-99,003
-43,496
-23,261
-3,372
-6,701
15,611
-68,300
-44,479
-11,158
-149,688
-43,518
-140,638
-92,818
-60,803
-179,102
-169,792
-248,955
-236,822
-211,070
-152,221
-117,427
-168,727
-1,821,893
Annual Total
-845,758
-643,344
1,000 MW Avg CF
10%
7%
Offpeak
Peak
-254,666
-262,739
-305,028
-321,472
-298,530
-417,972
-517,407
-509,814
-478,054
-264,298
-226,515
-261,855
-4,118,350
65%
73%
59%
33%
12%
22%
43%
43%
34%
39%
42%
59%
53%
61%
44%
29%
8%
14%
40%
36%
29%
39%
31%
43%
-1,202,985
-158,040
-179,605
-282,752
-311,885
-308,802
-355,603
-498,920
-481,233
-414,273
-252,742
-163,371
-189,808
-3,597,034
-3,710,854
-2,515,428
-7,715,384
42%
38%
23%
-1,312,443
-207,549
-216,171
-171,496
-109,547
-32,261
-55,539
-155,745
-141,932
-112,745
Additional figures and data below illustrate the patterns of Canadian flow to New England during the
cold snap week in early January, 2014, along with power prices and system load on January 7, 2014.
103
Figure 21. Canadian imports to New England, week of January 2, 2014 (negative numbers represent imports to
New England from Canada)
Figure 22. Canadian imports to New England, week of January 2, 2014 (negative numbers represent imports to
New England from Canada)
104
Figure 23. ISO-NE system load, January 7, 2014
Figure 24. HQ Interface prices, cold snap period, January 2014
105
Table 42. Modeling recommendations on new transmission to New England
Imports into New England
Generic HVDC 1
Generic HVDC 2
HQ Phase II Expand to Max Rating
Model Cases
Canadian
transmission
only
Canadian
transmission
only
Nominal/Max
1,100
1,100
200
Summer Max
1,100
1,100
200
Winter Peak Day MW
1,100
1,100
200
Year Available
2018
2022
2020
Generic
baseloaded
import
Generic
intermediate
import
Increase for extreme peak

periods only after New York
upstate upgrades complete
Flow Patterns
TBD
TBD
TBD
Avg Ann CF
.67
.5
Available only on extreme peak

days
Comments/Source
Table 42 lists the two recommended new Canadian transmission sources for the incremental Canadian
transmission sensitivity run, totaling 2,200 MW, plus an assumption that the Phase II facility will be able
to operate at its maximum rating by 2020. Synapse assumes one new line will be available by 2018, and
a second by 2022, in our sensitivity for new Canadian transmission.
1) The two generic lines represent any of a number of possible Canadian
generation source points, through Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, or possibly
even Connecticut paths. They are based on the same information available to
Synapse in November 2013. See data in Table 43, taken from the November 1,
2013 Memo to MA DOER.
2) The incremental Phase II capacity is based in part on the observations in ISO
NEs 2013 Draft Economic Study which looked at the production cost and
emissions impacts of various configurations that would increase the Phase II
limits up to the maximum 2,000 MW equipment ratings. Also, we note that
ongoing proceedings in New York State indicate that by 2020, there is likely to
be substantial upgrade of the major west-to-east constrained paths in upstate
New York that contribute to the loss-of-source contingency event limitations on
Phase II.
3) We note that the total of the Phase II and the generic new lines results in a total
incremental Canadian transmission capacity to New England of 2,400 MW on
peak days when New England pricing allows increased flows, in the Canadian
transmission sensitivity.
106
Table 43. From Table A-1, Synapse 11/1/13 Memo, Expanded potential transmission paths, new projects
Route / Path
VT Route /
overland +
submarine
ME Route 2
ME Route 1
/ overland +
/ overland
submarine
NH Route /
Northern
Pass
CHPE II /
submarine
Clean
energy
express
Northeast
Energy Link
Green Line
Northern
Pass
Capacity (MW)
1,000
1,100
1,000
1,200
1,000
Estimated Capital Costs

(2013 $ B)
$1.50
$2.20
$2.50
$1.40
$2.00
Cost Normalized to 1200 MW

(2013 $ B)
$1.80
$2.40
$3.00
$1.40
Proxy
Injection
Canada-VT
border
Orrington
Orrington /
ME Yankee
NH-VT
border
Terminus
VT - 345 kV
Southern
MA Tewksbury
MA - Boston
NH - 345 kV
Deerfield
Project Developer Estimated

In-Service date
2019
2016
NA
2016
Synapse modeling In-Service

date
2018
2020
2022
2015
Project Type
New
New
New
New
CT via
submarine
path from
QC
New
Energy Sources
Other source material:

4) CRA report for Northern Pass assumes full 1,200 MW import on winter peak day
(http://northernpass.us/assets/permits-andapprovals/FERC_TSA_Filing_CharlesRiverAssoc_analysis.pdf, page 33)
5) Northern Pass amended application to US DOE 1200 MW baseload power, Page
67
1, Page 73
6) TDI Clean Power Express, application to US DOE for presidential permit, 1,000
MW. No statement on baseload, or CF.
67
United States of America before the Department of Energy Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Northern Pass
Transmission LLC Docket No. PP-371 Amended Application July 1, 2013
107
Also, we note that a new line from Canada of roughly 1,100 MW will result in a range of energy transfer
up to as much as 8.4 TWh into New England. However, the total transfer could be only roughly half that
amount if the line is operated in more of an intermediate than a baseload mode. Two lines will lead
to an increase in imports of potentially twice those amounts. Table 44 documents the increases in
Canadian exports that would be required to accommodate operation of these lines at the utilization
levels listed in the table.
Table 44. Estimate of total annual energy from imports from new sources, given (TWh)
Line Capacity (MW)
1,000
1,100
1,200
Avg Annual Capacity Factor

50%
67%
80%
4.4
5.9
7.0
4.8
6.5
7.7
5.3
7.0
8.4
108
APPENDIX F: DETAILED PRELIMINARY MODEL RESULTS

See the next eight pages for detailed model results for each scenario.
109
Scenario 1: Base Case - Reference Gas Price - No Hydro
This scenario requires a pipeline.

Peak Hour
Billion NG
Btu per
Hour
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
157
160
162
165
168
169
169
170
171
172
173
174
174
175
176
177
Heating Balancing
Heating Delta
Non-Contracted Demand
Non-Contracted Delta
Non-Contracted Balancing
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
Existing
Pipeline
Capacity
Existing LDC
Vaporization
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
Heating
Demand
Shortage
MA Electric
System
Existing
Distrigas
Vaporization
Mystic LNG
Injection
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
-8
-9
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-15
-16
-16
-17
-17
-17
-18
-18
-18
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
86
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
-19
-6
-6
-6
-7
-6
-5
-4
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
116%
104%
104%
105%
105%
104%
104%
103%
103%
102%
102%
102%
102%
101%
101%
101%
19
6
6
6
7
6
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
14
14
12
23
20
54
52
52
53
55
53
53
56
60
60
61
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0.1
Incremental
Pipeline
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
38
38
38
2
11
13
2
5
5
8
8
8
6
8
9
6
7
7
6
95%
63%
59%
95%
85%
92%
88%
87%
88%
90%
87%
86%
90%
90%
90%
92%
Annual
Trillion NG
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
System
Winter
Reliability
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
262
267
270
274
278
279
280
282
283
284
286
287
289
290
291
-15
-17
-20
-22
-24
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31
-31
-32
-32
-32
-12
-14
-15
-17
-19
-21
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-29
-30
-32
-33
181
185
200
199
205
256
247
233
236
248
254
255
254
270
274
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2030
293
-32
-34
261
2013 $ M
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Gas EE
Electric EE PA
$873
$971
$1,024
$1,117
$1,085
$1,013
$1,069
$1,098
$1,125
$1,162
$1,180
$1,205
$1,231
$1,258
$1,293
$1,350
$138
$158
$181
$199
$215
$232
$244
$253
$257
$263
$269
$274
$277
$281
$283
$284
$507
$577
$641
$695
$737
$775
$811
$844
$874
$901
$923
$943
$961
$973
$984
$997
Year
Million
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Btu per
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand
Metric Tons LDCs, Munis,

Capacity
CO2 per
Total
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Maximum
allowable for
complicance
Compliant?
Year
Exempt
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
Inventory
Winter
Reliability
417
421
435
434
440
489
478
463
465
477
482
482
480
496
500
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
18
18
18
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
31
30
29
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
23
-
No
-
487
2030
16
-2
-2
17
29
19
No
Low Demand
Resources
Capital
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
"Total" Costs
per Year
GWSA Emissions
Total
"Delta" Costs
TVR
Avoided Price
Spikes
Incremental
Pipeline
MA Electric
System
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
Total
Gas Reduction
Measures
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$3,479
-$3,430
-$3,321
-$3,327
-$3,481
-$3,440
-$3,460
-$3,477
-$3,579
-$3,597
-$3,575
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$45
$45
$45
$2,181
$2,300
$2,239
$2,290
$2,272
$2,089
$2,127
$2,204
$2,287
$2,334
$2,403
$2,484
$2,546
$2,653
$2,773
$2,855
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,808
$4,007
$4,086
$4,301
$4,309
$670
$860
$1,118
$1,257
$1,219
$1,471
$1,485
$1,578
$1,630
$1,780
$1,956
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Delta Costs
Other Resouces
Capital
from Base
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Scenario 2: Base Case - Low Gas Price - No Hydro

Peak Hour
Billion NG
Btu per
Hour
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
157
160
162
165
168
169
169
170
171
172
173
174
174
175
176
177
Heating Balancing
Heating Delta
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
Existing
Pipeline
Capacity
Existing LDC
Vaporization
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
Heating
Demand
Shortage
MA Electric
System
Existing
Distrigas
Vaporization
Mystic LNG
Injection
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
-8
-9
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-15
-16
-16
-17
-17
-17
-18
-18
-18
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
86
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
-19
-6
-6
-6
-7
-6
-5
-4
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
116%
104%
104%
105%
105%
104%
104%
103%
103%
102%
102%
102%
102%
101%
101%
101%
19
6
6
6
7
6
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
14
14
12
23
20
54
52
52
54
55
54
54
56
60
61
61
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0.1
Incremental
Pipeline
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
33
33
33
33
38
38
38
38
38
38
38
2
11
13
2
5
5
7
8
7
10
12
12
10
7
6
6
95%
63%
59%
95%
85%
92%
89%
87%
89%
85%
83%
82%
85%
90%
91%
92%
Annual
Trillion NG
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
System
Winter
Reliability
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
262
267
270
274
278
279
280
282
283
284
286
287
289
290
291
-15
-17
-20
-22
-24
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31
-31
-32
-32
-32
-12
-14
-15
-17
-19
-21
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-29
-30
-32
-33
192
195
200
199
205
291
303
300
299
295
297
299
296
296
297
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2030
293
-32
-34
294
2013 $ M
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Gas EE
Electric EE PA
$873
$957
$952
$1,002
$974
$909
$922
$937
$953
$972
$982
$995
$1,009
$1,025
$1,033
$1,045
$138
$158
$181
$199
$215
$232
$244
$253
$257
$263
$269
$274
$277
$281
$283
$284
$507
$577
$641
$695
$737
$775
$811
$844
$874
$901
$923
$943
$961
$973
$984
$997
Year
Million
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Btu per
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand

Capacity
CO2 per
Total
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Maximum
allowable for
complicance
Compliant?
Year
Exempt
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
Inventory
Winter
Reliability
427
431
435
434
440
523
534
530
528
524
524
526
523
522
523
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
18
18
18
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
31
30
29
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
23
-
No
-
520
2030
16
-2
-2
17
29
19
No
Low Demand
Resources
Capital
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
"Total" Costs
per Year
GWSA Emissions
Total
"Delta" Costs
TVR
Avoided Price
Spikes
Incremental
Pipeline
MA Electric
System
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
Total
Gas Reduction
Measures
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$3,479
-$3,430
-$3,321
-$3,327
-$3,481
-$3,440
-$3,460
-$3,477
-$3,579
-$3,597
-$3,575
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40
$40
$40
$40
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$45
$1,770
$1,850
$2,239
$2,290
$2,272
$1,694
$1,696
$1,720
$1,767
$1,798
$1,852
$1,897
$1,931
$1,961
$1,976
$2,033
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,397
$3,542
$4,014
$4,186
$4,198
$171
$281
$473
$565
$497
$728
$693
$746
$706
$724
$829
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Delta Costs
Other Resouces
Capital
from Base
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$411
-$464
-$72
-$115
-$111
-$499
-$578
-$645
-$692
-$722
-$743
-$791
-$832
-$925
-$1,055
-$1,127
Scenario 3: Base Case - High Gas Price - No Hydro

Peak Hour
Billion NG
Btu per
Hour
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
157
160
162
165
168
169
169
170
171
172
173
174
174
175
176
177
Heating Balancing
Heating Delta
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
Existing
Pipeline
Capacity
Existing LDC
Vaporization
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
Heating
Demand
Shortage
MA Electric
System
Existing
Distrigas
Vaporization
Mystic LNG
Injection
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
-8
-9
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-15
-16
-16
-17
-17
-17
-18
-18
-18
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
86
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
-19
-6
-6
-6
-7
-6
-5
-4
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
116%
104%
104%
105%
105%
104%
104%
103%
103%
102%
102%
102%
102%
101%
101%
101%
19
6
6
6
7
6
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
14
14
12
23
19
52
52
51
52
54
53
53
52
56
60
57
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0.1
Incremental
Pipeline
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
38
38
2
11
13
2
5
7
8
9
9
7
8
9
10
6
7
10
95%
63%
59%
95%
85%
90%
88%
85%
86%
89%
87%
86%
84%
90%
90%
86%
Annual
Trillion NG
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
System
Winter
Reliability
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
262
267
270
274
278
279
280
282
283
284
286
287
289
290
291
-15
-17
-20
-22
-24
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31
-31
-32
-32
-32
-12
-14
-15
-17
-19
-21
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-29
-30
-32
-33
182
187
195
196
201
251
242
227
229
241
244
241
238
256
258
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2030
293
-32
-34
244
2013 $ M
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Gas EE
Electric EE PA
$873
$985
$1,072
$1,120
$1,133
$1,159
$1,206
$1,268
$1,330
$1,397
$1,478
$1,546
$1,605
$1,665
$1,697
$1,750
$138
$158
$181
$199
$215
$232
$244
$253
$257
$263
$269
$274
$277
$281
$283
$284
$507
$577
$641
$695
$737
$775
$811
$844
$874
$901
$923
$943
$961
$973
$984
$997
Year
Million
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Btu per
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand

Capacity
CO2 per
Total
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Maximum
allowable for
complicance
Compliant?
Year
Exempt
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
Inventory
Winter
Reliability
417
423
430
431
436
484
473
457
458
469
471
468
465
482
484
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
18
18
18
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
31
30
29
30
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
23
-
No
-
470
2030
16
-2
-2
17
29
19
No
Low Demand
Resources
Capital
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
"Total" Costs
per Year
GWSA Emissions
Total
"Delta" Costs
TVR
Avoided Price
Spikes
Incremental
Pipeline
MA Electric
System
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
Total
Gas Reduction
Measures
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$3,479
-$3,430
-$3,321
-$3,327
-$3,481
-$3,440
-$3,460
-$3,477
-$3,579
-$3,597
-$3,575
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$45
$45
$2,181
$2,312
$2,338
$2,389
$2,407
$2,231
$2,249
$2,354
$2,466
$2,528
$2,653
$2,766
$2,847
$2,988
$3,118
$3,180
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,808
$4,033
$4,233
$4,403
$4,492
$958
$1,119
$1,439
$1,640
$1,647
$2,019
$2,108
$2,253
$2,368
$2,530
$2,680
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Delta Costs
Other Resouces
Capital
from Base
Total
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$26
$147
$102
$183
$289
$259
$321
$383
$428
$548
$624
$675
$738
$750
$724
Scenario 4: Base Case - Reference Gas Price - Hydro

Peak Hour
Billion NG
Btu per
Hour
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
157
160
162
165
168
169
169
170
171
172
173
174
174
175
176
177
Heating Balancing
Heating Delta
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
Existing
Pipeline
Capacity
Existing LDC
Vaporization
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
Heating
Demand
Shortage
MA Electric
System
Existing
Distrigas
Vaporization
Mystic LNG
Injection
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
-8
-9
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-15
-16
-16
-17
-17
-17
-18
-18
-18
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
86
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
-19
-6
-6
-6
-7
-6
-5
-4
-4
-3
-3
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
116%
104%
104%
105%
105%
104%
104%
103%
103%
102%
102%
102%
102%
101%
101%
101%
19
6
6
6
7
6
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
14
14
12
21
16
53
52
51
46
51
51
53
48
52
54
52
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0.1
Incremental
Pipeline
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
2
11
13
4
8
6
8
10
15
10
11
9
14
10
9
11
95%
63%
59%
87%
74%
91%
88%
85%
76%
85%
83%
86%
78%
84%
87%
84%
Annual
Trillion NG
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
System
Winter
Reliability
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
262
267
270
274
278
279
280
282
283
284
286
287
289
290
291
-15
-17
-20
-22
-24
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31
-31
-32
-32
-32
-12
-14
-15
-17
-19
-21
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-29
-30
-32
-33
181
185
197
177
185
232
222
192
196
213
217
217
217
233
237
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2030
293
-32
-34
228
2013 $ M
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Gas EE
Electric EE PA
$873
$971
$1,024
$1,117
$1,085
$1,013
$1,069
$1,098
$1,125
$1,162
$1,180
$1,205
$1,231
$1,258
$1,293
$1,350
$138
$158
$181
$199
$215
$232
$244
$253
$257
$263
$269
$274
$277
$281
$283
$284
$507
$577
$641
$695
$737
$775
$811
$844
$874
$901
$923
$943
$961
$973
$984
$997
Year
Million
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Btu per
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand

Capacity
CO2 per
Total
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Maximum
allowable for
complicance
Compliant?
Year
Exempt
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
Inventory
Winter
Reliability
417
421
432
412
420
465
454
421
425
441
444
444
443
459
463
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
18
18
18
15
15
15
15
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
31
30
27
27
27
27
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
23
-
No
-
454
2030
16
-2
-2
13
25
19
No
Low Demand
Resources
Capital
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
"Total" Costs
per Year
GWSA Emissions
Total
"Delta" Costs
TVR
Avoided Price
Spikes
Incremental
Pipeline
MA Electric
System
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
Total
Gas Reduction
Measures
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$3,479
-$3,430
-$3,321
-$3,327
-$3,481
-$3,440
-$3,460
-$3,477
-$3,579
-$3,597
-$3,575
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$40
$2,181
$2,300
$2,298
$2,210
$2,192
$1,989
$2,014
$2,000
$2,076
$2,116
$2,177
$2,250
$2,307
$2,404
$2,520
$2,589
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$12
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,808
$4,007
$4,145
$4,221
$4,229
$570
$747
$914
$1,046
$1,001
$1,245
$1,251
$1,339
$1,377
$1,522
$1,685
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Delta Costs
from Base
Other Resouces
Capital
Total
$129
$129
$129
$129
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$0
$0
$0
$129
$129
$129
$129
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$0
$0
$59
$49
$49
$29
$16
$114
$107
$99
$92
$84
$78
$64
$60
$47
Scenario 5: Low Demand Case - Reference Gas Price - No Hydro
Peak Hour
Billion NG
Btu per
Hour
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
157
160
162
165
168
169
169
170
171
172
173
174
174
175
176
177
Heating Balancing
Heating Delta
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
Existing
Pipeline
Capacity
Existing LDC
Vaporization
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
Heating
Demand
Shortage
MA Electric
System
Existing
Distrigas
Vaporization
Mystic LNG
Injection
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
-8
-10
-13
-15
-17
-19
-20
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
86
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
-19
-4
-4
-4
-3
-1
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
116%
103%
103%
103%
102%
101%
99%
98%
97%
96%
95%
94%
94%
93%
92%
91%
19
4
4
4
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
14
12
23
16
53
51
50
49
51
48
48
48
51
53
46
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0.6
Incremental
Pipeline
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
2
13
15
5
12
6
9
10
12
9
12
12
12
9
7
14
95%
59%
52%
84%
62%
90%
85%
83%
81%
84%
80%
79%
79%
85%
88%
76%
Annual
Trillion NG
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
System
Winter
Reliability
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
262
267
270
274
278
279
280
282
283
284
286
287
289
290
291
-15
-19
-23
-27
-30
-34
-37
-40
-43
-45
-48
-50
-52
-54
-56
-12
-14
-15
-17
-19
-21
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-29
-30
-32
-33
182
184
193
189
193
240
224
205
202
212
211
208
203
214
213
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2030
293
-58
-34
200
2013 $ M
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Gas EE
Electric EE PA
$873
$962
$1,009
$1,092
$1,054
$976
$1,022
$1,041
$1,059
$1,085
$1,092
$1,106
$1,121
$1,136
$1,158
$1,199
$138
$179
$214
$246
$277
$308
$335
$359
$376
$396
$416
$435
$454
$472
$489
$506
$507
$580
$651
$714
$770
$821
$869
$915
$957
$996
$1,031
$1,064
$1,096
$1,121
$1,146
$1,172
Year
Million
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Btu per
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand

Capacity
CO2 per
Total
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Maximum
allowable for
complicance
Compliant?
Year
Exempt
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
Inventory
Winter
Reliability
417
418
424
419
421
464
445
423
418
425
421
416
409
418
416
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
18
18
17
16
16
16
15
14
13
12
12
11
10
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
30
29
28
28
27
26
25
24
23
23
22
21
20
20
23
-
No
-
401
2030
16
-3
-2
19
19
No
Low Demand
Resources
Capital
$2
$19
$30
$41
$52
$63
$143
$224
$303
$382
$461
$539
$616
$693
$770
$846
"Total" Costs
per Year
GWSA Emissions
Total
"Delta" Costs
TVR
Avoided Price
Spikes
Incremental
Pipeline
MA Electric
System
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
Total
Gas Reduction
Measures
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$3,479
-$3,430
-$3,321
-$3,327
-$3,481
-$3,440
-$3,460
-$3,477
-$3,579
-$3,597
-$3,575
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$2,191
$2,281
$2,246
$2,292
$2,238
$1,970
$1,938
$1,942
$1,953
$1,926
$1,915
$1,922
$1,907
$1,931
$1,965
$1,955
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,817
$4,001
$4,120
$4,344
$4,338
$631
$768
$971
$1,053
$957
$1,147
$1,102
$1,135
$1,115
$1,194
$1,292
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Delta Costs
Other Resouces
Capital
from Base
Total
$2
$19
$30
$41
$52
$63
$143
$224
$303
$382
$461
$539
$616
$693
$770
$846
$11
$14
$64
$85
$80
$24
$52
$76
$100
$120
$136
$156
$173
$178
$185
$182
Scenario 6: Low Demand Case - Low Gas Price - No Hydro

Peak Hour
Billion NG
Btu per
Hour
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
157
160
162
165
168
169
169
170
171
172
173
174
174
175
176
177
Heating Balancing
Heating Delta
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
Existing
Pipeline
Capacity
Existing LDC
Vaporization
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
Heating
Demand
Shortage
MA Electric
System
Existing
Distrigas
Vaporization
Mystic LNG
Injection
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
-8
-10
-13
-15
-17
-19
-20
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
86
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
-19
-4
-4
-4
-3
-1
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
116%
103%
103%
103%
102%
101%
99%
98%
97%
96%
95%
94%
94%
93%
92%
91%
19
4
4
4
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
14
12
23
18
53
51
50
50
51
51
50
48
50
53
49
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0.6
Incremental
Pipeline
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
29
2
13
15
5
10
6
9
10
11
9
10
10
12
10
7
11
95%
59%
52%
84%
68%
90%
85%
84%
82%
85%
84%
83%
80%
83%
88%
81%
Annual
Trillion NG
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
System
Winter
Reliability
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
262
267
270
274
278
279
280
282
283
284
286
287
289
290
291
-15
-19
-23
-27
-30
-34
-37
-40
-43
-45
-48
-50
-52
-54
-56
-12
-14
-15
-17
-19
-21
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-29
-30
-32
-33
182
186
196
192
196
245
232
212
209
216
213
208
201
209
208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2030
293
-58
-34
193
2013 $ M
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Gas EE
Electric EE PA
$873
$948
$938
$980
$946
$876
$881
$888
$897
$907
$909
$914
$919
$926
$925
$928
$138
$179
$214
$246
$277
$308
$335
$359
$376
$396
$416
$435
$454
$472
$489
$506
$507
$580
$651
$714
$770
$821
$869
$915
$957
$996
$1,031
$1,064
$1,096
$1,121
$1,146
$1,172
Year
Million
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Btu per
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand

Capacity
CO2 per
Total
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Maximum
allowable for
complicance
Compliant?
Year
Exempt
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
Inventory
Winter
Reliability
417
420
427
422
424
470
453
430
425
429
424
416
407
413
411
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
18
18
17
16
16
16
15
14
13
12
12
11
10
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
30
29
28
28
27
26
25
24
23
23
22
21
21
20
23
-
No
-
394
2030
16
-3
-2
19
19
No
Low Demand
Resources
Capital
$2
$17
$26
$35
$44
$53
$115
$177
$240
$302
$365
$427
$490
$552
$614
$677
"Total" Costs
per Year
GWSA Emissions
Total
"Delta" Costs
TVR
Avoided Price
Spikes
Incremental
Pipeline
MA Electric
System
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
Total
Gas Reduction
Measures
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$3,479
-$3,430
-$3,321
-$3,327
-$3,481
-$3,440
-$3,460
-$3,477
-$3,579
-$3,597
-$3,575
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$35
$2,279
$2,356
$2,187
$2,203
$2,151
$1,998
$1,985
$2,030
$2,083
$2,097
$2,123
$2,171
$2,200
$2,267
$2,327
$2,344
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,905
$4,062
$3,990
$4,143
$4,143
$559
$675
$906
$1,022
$951
$1,172
$1,159
$1,225
$1,241
$1,325
$1,409
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Delta Costs
Other Resouces
Capital
from Base
Total
$2
$17
$26
$35
$44
$53
$115
$177
$240
$302
$365
$427
$490
$552
$614
$677
$99
$73
-$70
-$123
-$123
-$58
-$70
-$34
$4
$34
$65
$102
$137
$163
$159
$130
Scenario 7: Low Demand Case - High Gas Price - No Hydro

Peak Hour
Billion NG
Btu per
Hour
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
157
160
162
165
168
169
169
170
171
172
173
174
174
175
176
177
Heating Balancing
Heating Delta
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
Existing
Pipeline
Capacity
Existing LDC
Vaporization
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
Heating
Demand
Shortage
MA Electric
System
Existing
Distrigas
Vaporization
Mystic LNG
Injection
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
-8
-10
-13
-15
-17
-19
-20
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-22
-23
86
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
-19
-4
-4
-4
-3
-1
1
3
4
6
7
9
10
11
13
14
116%
103%
103%
103%
102%
101%
99%
98%
97%
96%
95%
94%
93%
92%
91%
90%
19
4
4
4
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
14
12
25
16
52
51
49
44
44
41
43
39
41
45
39
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0.6
Incremental
Pipeline
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2
13
15
3
12
3
6
7
12
12
16
13
17
15
11
18
95%
59%
52%
92%
62%
94%
90%
87%
79%
78%
72%
77%
69%
73%
80%
69%
Annual
Trillion NG
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
System
Winter
Reliability
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
262
267
270
274
278
279
280
282
283
284
286
287
289
290
291
-15
-19
-23
-27
-30
-34
-37
-40
-43
-45
-48
-50
-52
-54
-56
-12
-14
-15
-17
-19
-21
-22
-24
-25
-27
-28
-30
-31
-33
-34
182
184
189
187
189
232
211
190
185
190
181
177
166
178
171
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2030
293
-58
-36
160
2013 $ M
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Gas EE
Electric EE PA
$873
$976
$1,056
$1,096
$1,101
$1,117
$1,152
$1,201
$1,249
$1,300
$1,364
$1,413
$1,454
$1,495
$1,510
$1,543
$138
$179
$214
$246
$277
$308
$335
$359
$376
$396
$416
$435
$454
$472
$489
$506
$507
$580
$651
$714
$770
$821
$869
$915
$957
$996
$1,031
$1,064
$1,096
$1,121
$1,146
$1,172
Year
Million
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Btu per
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand

Capacity
CO2 per
Total
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Maximum
allowable for
complicance
Compliant?
Year
Exempt
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
Inventory
Winter
Reliability
417
418
421
417
417
457
432
408
401
402
391
384
371
381
372
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
18
18
17
16
16
15
13
11
10
8
7
5
4
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
30
29
28
28
27
25
23
21
19
18
16
15
14
12
23
-
No
-
359
2030
16
-3
-2
11
19
Yes
Low Demand
Resources
Capital
$3
$35
$62
$88
$115
$142
$464
$785
$1,105
$1,425
$1,744
$2,062
$2,379
$2,696
$3,012
$3,327
"Total" Costs
per Year
GWSA Emissions
Total
"Delta" Costs
TVR
Avoided Price
Spikes
Incremental
Pipeline
MA Electric
System
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
Total
Gas Reduction
Measures
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$3,479
-$3,430
-$3,321
-$3,327
-$3,481
-$3,440
-$3,460
-$3,477
-$3,579
-$3,597
-$3,575
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$2,191
$2,288
$2,272
$2,279
$2,251
$2,072
$1,959
$1,937
$1,916
$1,843
$1,818
$1,788
$1,724
$1,717
$1,702
$1,619
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,817
$4,023
$4,192
$4,335
$4,398
$869
$915
$1,121
$1,202
$1,084
$1,316
$1,270
$1,280
$1,256
$1,279
$1,294
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2
$2
$2
$2
$2
$3
$3
$3
$3
$3
Delta Costs
Other Resouces
Capital
from Base
Total
$3
$35
$62
$88
$115
$142
$466
$787
$1,108
$1,427
$1,746
$2,065
$2,382
$2,699
$3,015
$3,330
$12
$51
$168
$123
$204
$341
$521
$790
$1,053
$1,292
$1,591
$1,850
$2,084
$2,324
$2,514
$2,668
Scenario 8: Low Demand Case - Reference Gas Price - Hydro

Peak Hour
Billion NG
Btu per
Hour
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
157
160
162
165
168
169
169
170
171
172
173
174
174
175
176
177
Heating Balancing
Heating Delta
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
Existing
Pipeline
Capacity
Existing LDC
Vaporization
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
Heating
Demand
Shortage
MA Electric
System
Existing
Distrigas
Vaporization
Mystic LNG
Injection
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
-8
-10
-13
-15
-17
-19
-20
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-13
-14
-15
-16
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
86
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
37
-19
-4
-4
-4
-3
-1
1
2
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
116%
103%
103%
103%
102%
101%
99%
98%
97%
96%
95%
94%
94%
93%
92%
91%
19
4
4
4
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
14
12
19
16
50
51
43
42
44
44
44
45
49
48
46
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
0.6
Incremental
Pipeline
Supply less
Demand
Demand as a
% of Supply
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
2
13
15
8
12
5
5
13
14
12
12
13
11
7
8
10
95%
59%
52%
73%
62%
90%
92%
76%
75%
78%
78%
78%
80%
87%
85%
83%
Annual
Trillion NG
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
System
Winter
Reliability
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
262
267
270
274
278
279
280
282
283
284
286
287
289
290
291
-15
-19
-23
-27
-30
-34
-37
-40
-43
-45
-48
-50
-52
-54
-56
-12
-14
-15
-17
-19
-21
-22
-23
-25
-26
-27
-29
-30
-32
-33
182
184
193
171
174
215
203
170
169
185
181
182
176
192
190
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2030
293
-58
-34
182
2013 $ M
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Gas EE
Electric EE PA
$873
$962
$1,009
$1,092
$1,054
$976
$1,022
$1,041
$1,059
$1,085
$1,092
$1,106
$1,121
$1,136
$1,158
$1,199
$138
$179
$214
$246
$277
$308
$335
$359
$376
$396
$416
$435
$454
$472
$489
$506
$507
$580
$651
$714
$770
$821
$869
$915
$957
$996
$1,031
$1,064
$1,096
$1,121
$1,146
$1,172
Year
Million
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand
LDCs, Munis,
Capacity
Exempt
Btu per
Non-Contracted
Heating Demand

Capacity
CO2 per
Total
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Maximum
allowable for
complicance
Compliant?
Year
Exempt
Gas EE
Gas Reduction
Measures
MA Electric
Inventory
Winter
Reliability
417
418
424
401
403
439
424
388
384
398
392
390
382
396
393
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-2
-3
-3
-3
-3
-3
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
-2
-2
-2
18
18
17
14
14
13
12
10
9
8
8
7
7
6
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
30
29
26
26
25
24
21
20
20
19
18
17
17
16
23
-
No
-
383
2030
16
-3
-2
16
19
Yes
Low Demand
Resources
Capital
$2
$19
$30
$41
$52
$63
$143
$224
$303
$382
$461
$539
$616
$693
$770
$846
"Total" Costs
per Year
GWSA Emissions
Total
"Delta" Costs
TVR
Avoided Price
Spikes
Incremental
Pipeline
MA Electric
System
Demand
Response
Winter
Reliability
Total
Gas Reduction
Measures
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$97
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
-$3,479
-$3,430
-$3,321
-$3,327
-$3,481
-$3,440
-$3,460
-$3,477
-$3,579
-$3,597
-$3,575
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$30
$2,191
$2,281
$2,246
$2,120
$2,068
$1,873
$1,829
$1,747
$1,756
$1,721
$1,703
$1,707
$1,689
$1,709
$1,736
$1,717
$1
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$11
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$3,817
$4,001
$4,120
$4,173
$4,168
$529
$654
$770
$851
$748
$930
$882
$912
$888
$961
$1,049
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Delta Costs
from Base
Other Resouces
Capital
Total
$129
$129
$129
$129
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$318
$2
$19
$30
$170
$181
$192
$272
$541
$621
$700
$779
$857
$934
$1,011
$1,088
$1,164
$11
$14
$64
$42
$39
$51
$67
$194
$215
$228
$237
$254
$268
$269
$268
$256

Massachusetts Low Demand Final Report PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Massachusetts Low Demand Final Report PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Massachusetts Low Gas Demand

Analysis: Final Report

485 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 2

MODEL OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 12

MODEL RESULTS ............................................................................................ 32

APPENDIX A: FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 46

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Table ES-1. Scenario key

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Caveats to model scope

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

incremental Canadian resources assumed to be dedicated transmission of hydroelectric

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Appendix B presents assumptions used in modeling the base case;

Appendix E presents assumptions regarding the sensitivity analysis of the addition of

Appendix F presents detailed tables of the model results.

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

No incremental Canadian transmission

Reference natural gas prices (Scenario 1)

Low natural gas prices (Scenario 2)

High natural gas prices (Scenario 3)

2,400-MW incremental Canadian transmission

Reference natural gas prices (Scenario 4)

Low energy demand case

No incremental Canadian transmission

Reference natural gas prices (Scenario 5)

Low natural gas prices (Scenario 6)

High natural gas prices (Scenario 7)

2,400-MW incremental Canadian transmission

Reference natural gas prices (Scenario 8)

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Sufficiency of Massachusetts gas pipeline capacity under winter peak event

Reliability requirements were a basic criterion for all modeled scenarios.

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.

Final Report for Low Gas Demand Analysis

Electric-sector greenhouse gas emissions and cost modeling in Market Analytics

A Synapse purpose-built model of Massachusetts natural gas capacity and demand

Local distribution companies (LDCs local gas providers)

Municipal light and gas companies (munis)

Gas energy efficiency measures

Gas-fired electric generators located in Massachusetts.

Existing pipeline capacity: Algonquin Gas Transmission Company (AGT),

Synapse Energy Economics, Inc.